DEAD RECKONING

One law for all

2010-09-15T05:51:00.005-05:00

The Toronto Star published an opinion by York University Professor, Harvey Simmons, a political scientist specializing in fascist movements in France. His piece was what could fairly be described as “Sharia-friendly”. The irony of a non-Muslim male making a career of decrying fascism and seeing no particular danger with legalizing Sharia in Ontario is just too rich to not write about.

Simmons was marking the 5th anniversary of the successful battle by Muslim women in Canada to defeat the proposal by Muslim male political activists to establish Islamic family arbitration councils whose decisions would be enforced through the mechanism of the Ontario Arbitrations Act – a statute that was really intended to deal with commercial matters. However, the Act was broad enough to permit religious arbitrations in the Christian and Jewish communities.

The Ontario Muslim males, who have much to gain by legalizing their doctrinaire power over Muslim females, thought, “Hey, why not us?” Why not indeed? They even got the foolish socialist politician, Marion Boyd, a former Attorney-General, to write a favourable report to the Ontario government. Funny how socialism can turn your thinking ability to mush. Shame on any woman supporting implementation of Sharia to the detriment of her sister citizens.

Professor Simmons seems to have been cooed by the blandishments of the late Syed Mumtaz Ali, the former President of the Islamic Society of Canada and the creator of the proposed “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” that there would be nothing going on in these arbitrations that violated Ontario law. How can anybody familiar with women’s rights under Sharia accept such nonsense? There is no way the equal rights that all women enjoy in Ontario do not conflict with the Sharia.

Simmons claims:

Ironically, because religious arbitration now takes place mainly outside the scrutiny of the Ontario courts, there is no way to tell whether women are being treated well or badly in informal religious arbitrations conducted by imams, rabbis or, indeed, any other arbitrator chosen by the parties involved.

What rubbish! Women in Ontario have the right to have their family matters decided in accordance with the Family Law Act. That is where they may apply for justice and that is where they can expose any unfairness in any ad hoc religious arbitrations.

For a very good examination of the problems of reconciling the Sharia with the laws of a secular liberal democracy go to this site.

Nine years and still lying -- what a sad tribute to the victims of 9/11

2010-09-11T08:59:00.003-05:00

This was in today's Toronto Star:

Obama described with admiration how former President George W. Bush drew a “crystal-clear” line between the attackers of Al Qaeda and the immense religion they purported to represent.

Bush helped Americans understand “we were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts,” said Obama.

“And I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion that we are not going to be divided by religion; we're not going to be divided by ethnicity ... It is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of the American people to hang on to that thing which is best in us, a belief in religious tolerance ... we have to make sure we don't start turning on each other.”

Nine years and counting and they still do not get it:

1) The Islamists who brought down the World Trade Centre did not "steal" Islam and did not "pervert" it. The religious prescription for waging jihad against the enemies of Allah (i.e. non-believers) is as authentic in the Islamic holy lexicon as "turning the other cheek" is in Christianity. And it is not a few of these; the estimated number of Islamists worldwide is nearly 5 times the entire population of Canada.

2) Belief in religious tolerance does not provide a moral obligation to allow religious intolerance to be suborned. Islam is not a tolerant religion. When the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defence of the United States have to appeal to an obscure nutbar in Florida to desist from his announced intention to burn Korans lest dire consequences flow around the world in Muslim countries why would the same people be castigating Americans to be tolerant.

3) Just because you may not consider yourself at war with Islam does not mean that Islam may not be at war with you.

As long as the political leaders in the western world continue to lie and obfuscate the real problem that has become more and more evident to the ordinary people that these leaders are duty bound to protect, they will continue to slide down the slope of untrustworthiness. One would think they would start changing their tunes if for no other reason than to retain political position.

Go ahead, make my day

2010-09-04T07:28:00.004-05:00

If Islamism weren’t such a serious issue you would have to laugh out loud at Islamist’ spokespeople, like Sheik Feiz Muhammad, pictured above.

The Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is facing criminal charges under restrictive Dutch speech laws. He said rude things about Islam and produced a short video which shows Islamic texts, Imams preaching jihad and the results of terrorist activities carried out in the name of Islam. Gilders maintains that Islam is antithetical to the tradition of liberal democracy and justice in the Netherlands and he equates some of the most egregious examples drawn from the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia as being equivalent to the kinds of statements and arguments one would find in Hitler’s famous book, Mein Kampf. Hitler’s book is banned in the Netherlands.

As if on cue, a notorious Australian imam, Muhammad, has called for Wilders to be beheaded. This is a serious thing to say – just ask author Salman Rushdie who still has a death sentence hanging over him from the utterings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Do you think Muhammad is making Gilders’ point about the nature of Islam?

Contrast this with the reaction of Christians to the news that well-known anti-Christian author, Christopher Hitchens, is dying of cancer. Many have offered prayers for his recovery.

New York City mosque and frank discussion

2010-08-27T11:23:00.004-05:00

It seems the controversy over the New York City mosque has boiled down to those who oppose it claiming it sullies the memory of those who died because those who did the killing did it in the name of Islam and those who support it claiming that the opponents are bigots or are prejudiced. The pro forces claim that to oppose it means that you blame all Muslims for the actions of a few or you are being Islamophobic.

Apologists for Islam are constantly pointing out that Islam is not monolithic – there are different schools of thought and there are Sunnis and Shias as the two main, but quarreling, streams of Islam. The fight between Sunni and Shia, however, has to do with theological history within the faith. As far as Muslim relations with the non-Islamic world, all 4 recognized schools of Islamic doctrine do not differentiate in any meaningful way, whether you are Sunni or Shia. Jihad against the non-Islamic world is a fundamental religious obligation in either stream.

Many commentators and editorial writers have decried the politicization of the issue. I think, to the contrary, it is a good thing this matter has blown up into a national debate. It is less than 2 weeks away from the 9th anniversary of 9/11. It is about time the people of the United States had a frank and open examination of America’s relationship with the Islamic world. One wonders why it took so long.

In the 18 months since Barack Hussein Obama has been the President of the United States he has ventured into this relationship like a defeated Muslim-whipped dhimmi, constantly praising Islam for things it doesn’t deserve and trying to re-write American history in the same way the European have revised their history to make it sound like it has always been about Islam. Since about 70% of Americans in national polls indicate they oppose the building of this Islamic structure in the place proposed, it is clear that he is out of step with his citizens in a very big way. If this issue were the only thing on which he were being judged, then his approval rating would be no more than 30%.

While I am sure that there are bigots involved in opposition, to brand all opposition as simply being bigoted is itself a form of bigotry. There are many thoughtful people who have spoken out and said that for a religion that demands the utmost deference from non-Muslims (sometimes with the implied threat of violence otherwise) it has shown itself to be singularly resistant to the sensitivities of the general American public.

Secondly, there are an increasing number of people who are throwing off the shackles of political correctness and moral relativism and reminding themselves that America is not “one of the world’s largest Muslim countries” as Obama said in his Cairo speech, but is, in fact, a fundamentally Christian country, with a secular constitution. To stand in support of the beliefs of the vast majority of the citizens of the U.S. to counter the belief system of another religion and culture is not bigotry. To take a position that your cultural norms are better than their cultural norms may be prejudice, but that does not mean it is not warranted.

The fundamental concept underlying the pejorative notion of bigotry and prejudice are that they are without thought or reason. If the opponents have said that they have examined their own belief systems and that of Islam and prefer their own beliefs, how is that bigotry?

That is why I like the current debate. It forces the nation to re-examine its roots and its principles free from the thought-control of the political elites and media establishment.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

2010-07-27T10:28:00.010-05:00

Well, it is now official. The British electorate has thrown one fool out of public office, Gordon Brown, only to replace him with another, David Cameron.

This morning Cameron is quoted as saying that he will fight to get Turkey admitted to the EU. He conflates the EU with NATO, saying that it is not right to call upon Turkey to help defend the members of that treaty organization while keeping it out of the EU.

Does he believe NATO is a European construct? To the contrary, it was an American initiative that was shunned by the anti-American French President, Charles de Gaulle, who ordered the Americans to vacate their French airbases.

NATO membership is a non-sequitur to consideration for membership in the EU. NATO membership implies only military responsibilities and rights. EU membership permits free travel and easy immigration throughout the member countries, a not insignificant benefit to Turkey when one looks at its demographics (huge numbers of young people) and its distribution of the economic pie (low GDP per person compared to European countries).

He thinks that Turkey will be a moderating influence in bringing peace to the Middle East, but the price that must be paid for Turkey doing the right thing is to make it a member of the EU. Otherwise it will do the wrong thing and embrace the dark side, meaning -- Islam?

Hello?

You want to make it a member of the EU because it is Islamic, but you are afraid if you reject it then it will be, uh, Islamic, and therefore not a useful influence in making the Middle East peaceful.

The lights are on but nobody is at home.

What is most infuriating with this silly man is his elitist lecturing about the “real Islam” to the British public (including his own party) and other members of the EU, like France, which has now woken from its long self-induced Islamic hypnosis, and Germany.

This is what the Mail On-Line quotes him as saying during his trip to Turkey commenting on those who oppose Turkey’s entrance because it is an Islamic nation:

‘They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists.
‘They think the values of Islam can never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures.
‘All these arguments are just plain wrong. I want us to be at the forefront of an international effort to defeat them.’

And he criticized those who see the world as a ‘clash of civilizations’ in which Turkey must choose sides.

Europe has been fed a restricted diet of this crap for 40 years by the David Camerons of this world, and will, in 40 years, cease to exist as Europe because of it.

Was this man sleeping during the recent dust-up over the Turkish flotilla trying to crash the Israeli arms blockade that had the approval of the Turkish government, and resulted in threats by Turkey to Israel? How does that demonstrate Turkey’s neutrality and usefulness in bringing peace to the Middle East?

The man he is seen shaking hands with in the picture above is Turkey’s Prime Minister Ergodan who is on the public record as making the following statement:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

Yep. That would be the “real Islam” Cameron wants to bring to the U.K. and the EU.

Time for another British election before it is too late.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post I debated with myself whether to call the British Prime Minister an idiot or a moron, but I thought these were too harsh, so I opted for the more neutral "fool". Such restraint however does not enter into Melanie Phillips incisive deconstruction of Cameron's Ankara speech. See this.

Cluttering up the legal landscape with God

2010-07-13T12:57:00.005-05:00

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins by affirming that “Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” This week’s minor controversy about God’s presence in the preamble–set off, indirectly, by a Quebec ruling upholding a Catholic high school’s right to set its own curriculum — is no threat to our Constitution, but it is instructive. To a certain secularist mindset, any mention of God is a danger to public life, and any legal recognition of religion is but a short step away from theocracy. That’s not the case in Canada, and the “supremacy of God” preamble is something worth understanding– and defending.

The words were written in 1982 — less than 30 years ago. Constitutions, especially in their fundamental aspects, are supposed to endure more than a few decades without revision. By 1982, Canada already enjoyed a long tradition of religious liberty and democratic freedom, so the idea that putting God in the Constitution is a threat to anything, or a limitation on liberty, or an occasion of division among Canadians, is simply false. Indeed, given that several highly contentious decisions by our courts have expanded the language in the Charter beyond its original text, it is odd to argue that language actually in the Charter should be disregarded.

So say the editorial writers in the National Post.

Having dismissed secularists as wingnuts, which they are not, NP goes on to contradict itself. The first Constitution of Canada was proclaimed in 1867 and between then and 1982 contained no reference to the “supremacy of God” -- one hundred and fifteen years in which God was absent from the land, and the country prospered and grew. As Post put it, “Canada enjoyed a long tradition of religious liberty and democratic freedom”, without enshrining the supremacy of God in the Constitution. So, why bother pissing people off by throwing God into the mix?

The national makeup of Canada was very different in 1867 from what one finds today. Religion is less important to a rapidly growing number of people and among those are many people who think the concept of God is simply anachronistic. Moreover, the dominant religion, Christianity, is in a long decline in Canada

The Post tries to finesse this issue by claiming that it’s OK to put God in because it reminds of us our historical roots. I remember my historical roots: we used to sing "God Save the Queen" as our national anthem and Canada’s flag was a Red Ensign with a small Union Jack in the corner. We used to regularly refer to our country as the Dominion of Canada, and Statistics Canada used be called The Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Funny how selective we are about what historical roots are important and which ones are not.

The Post continues:

The Constitution describes not only who we are–matters of history — but also who we ought to be–matters of aspiration. This is likely what those who object to the “supremacy of God” find difficult. They think that such language excludes from the Canadian project those who do not believe in God. Yet even those Canadians should welcome God in the preamble. Something, after all, has to be supreme. And if it is not God, even understood in the broadest possible sense, then what is it?

Fearsome it would be to live in the land where the works of man alone are supreme. The “supremacy of God” is shorthand reminding us that our laws, even if duly passed, must conform to principles of justice, the service of the common good and the truth about the human person. That is an essential principle, otherwise the rule of law can be put in the service of tyranny. Laws which do not correspond to the truth cannot serve justice or advance the common good.

Memo to Post: those who do not believe in God are excluded by this language, it has nothing to do with what they think. Let me put it this way. Suppose instead of God we identified ourselves by sexual orientation and the Constitution said something about the “supremacy of heterosexuals”, which, after all, is also historically defendable. Would homosexuals feel excluded by such language?

“Something, after all, has to be supreme.” Assuming this is self-evident (which I am not conceding), we have the supremacy of Parliament, checked mainly by something called “The Supreme Court of Canada”. I think there is more than enough supremacy to go around in this country without loading up God’s shoulders with the burden.

Then comes this clunker:

Another point should be added. The God of which the Charter speaks remains undescribed — it could be the philosopher’s first cause or the Holy Trinity, or something else altogether. In practice, most Canadians would assume that this is the God of Jews and Christians. The Charter does not say that, but we ought to be grateful that it intuitively points in that direction. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only foundation for tolerance between different peoples, or for harmony in a pluralistic society, but surveying the global scene today it is the most secure foundation currently on offer. Certainly the experience of officially atheistic regimes is not encouraging.

The fact that most people would assume that it is the God of Jews and Christians is the whole point why God should not be mentioned in the Charter. Is that what judges will also assume if there is a religious contest with other religions that come before the courts where this language will be referenced? Courts should not be put in the position of picking one religion over another.

And what is an “officially atheistic regime”? This needs some clarification. After all, the new Prime Minister of Australia has declared herself to be an atheist – does that mean Australia qualifies as having an “officially atheistic regime.”

I think if one looks to countries that are “officially religious”, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, as examples, one could make the very same statement. This is why secularism is an important principle that should be upheld and defended.

Turkey's foreign policy

2010-07-06T11:28:00.004-05:00

The latest go around between Turkey and Israel has Turkey calling for an apology from Israel for the May 31 raid on the Turkish-flagged vessel, pay compensation, agree to a U.N. inquiry into the incident and lift the blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians living in Gaza Strip. In return for all of this Turkey offers not to “cut ties”.

The amount of compensation is unclear, the make-up of a U.N. inquiry is unclear, the nature of the ties to be cut is unclear and the wholesale lifting of the blockade will ensure an “armed to the teeth” Gazan militia.

In an earlier time, Turkey’s actions in all of this would likely constitute an act of war.

Fortunately, Turkey is dealing with a nuclear-armed state that shows remarkable constraint in the face of provocations. The U.S. asked Israel to stay out of the Gulf War and despite the rocket bombardment of Israel by Saddam Hussein, it complied with the request. One wonders if the charlatan in the White House who appears determined to set Israel adrift to appease the Muslim world would have the same success with Israel in a similar circumstance.

Anyway, it ought to be Turkey apologizing to Israel and having to explain why it permitted a ship load of Islamic radicals, bent on martyrdom to leave port for the sole purpose of provoking a military response from Israel. The only conclusion one can come to is that Turkey has long planned its break from Israel and the flotilla raid is the fig leaf it needed for legitimacy.

Turkey’s foreign policy should not be surprising to any student of the history of that country. It is best summarized by this: “Who is winning, go with them.”

At the outbreak of the First World War, Turkey wanted to sit on the sidelines in glorious neutrality until it figured out who was going to win and then it would join that side in the hope of sharing in the spoils. However, German diplomacy, in the face of British perfidy, indifference and arrogance caused the Turks to join the German and Austro-Hungarian Axis.

Had Turkey stayed out of the conflict there never would have been a disastrous Gallipoli campaign, Churchill would not have had to resign as First Lord of the Admiralty, Lawrence of Arabia would have been an obscure Arabist, Saudi Arabia would never have been born, and Britain and France may never have ended up with the League of Nations mandate over Syria, Iraq and Palestine.

What a difference all of that might have made for the Near and Middle East.

Turkey learned from its experience and managed to stay out of the Second World War, despite pressure from Germany, until the closing months when it joined the Allied side.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey embarked on a modernization program, reforming its governmental institutions and its cultural norms to make it more “Europeanized”. It saw modern, industrial Europe and the United States as the models of the winning side and it endeavoured to be one with them.

Now Turkey has slid away from that Western embrace and is courting the Islamic world it once dominated. Having taken the measure of the results of the 40 years of Arab-Euro dialogue on the fate of Europe and Israel, having seen the United States squander its political and economic capital on mostly fruitless wars in Islamic countries, having taken the measure of Muslim-leaning Barack Hussein Obama, Turkey has decided that the winning side is an Islamic world and it wants to join it, for the spoils.

Bat Ye'or and the Arab-Euro Axis

2010-07-05T13:18:00.008-05:00

It may seem strange, given some of the posts I have published, that I am only now getting around to reading Bat Ye'or's seminal work, Eurabia,the Euro-Arab Axis. It comes about because I had an occasion recently in Toronto to hear her speak, along with Sam Solomon (a former Muslim)about the issue of Israel. This was within a week of the incident of the Israeli military forces confronting Islamists on the Gaza flotilla.

She shocked me at this event by declaring that this was the first time she was ever invited to speak at a synagogue.

I am not a Jew, but I say shame on you Jews.

If you are to be protected by anyone and preserved as a people it is because of warriors like Bat Ye'or.

Anyway, I have not yet been able to work my way through her book, which details the pact made between the Arab states and their Muslim sympathizers to write the foreign policy of Western Europe regarding Israel through the threat to oil imports.

Speaking as a Canadian, in full light of the nonsense propagated by Barack Hussein Obama, I would put an end to NAFTA and keep our tar sands oil strictly for ourselves, and tell the Muslim world and the Americans to go to hell.

Despite the fact I am not yet finished the book, I found these paragraphs quite telling. They appear on page 87 of the paperback edition. To this point she has shown the close Arab/European dialogue, promoted mainly be France, under De Gaulle, to counter American influence. By 1980 she asserts:

Srong ties were forged between the OIC, the Arab and European states, as well as between various factions of the Left, the Vatican and the World Council of Churches. They led, under Arab threats, to Israel's demonization at all levels of European society as well as in international bodies. In fact, this Euro-Arab collusion appears mainly in Arab texts; in European sources, it is carefully disguised as a humanitarian concern for "the suffering of Palestinians abandoned by the world." Anglican Canon Kenneth Craig described this identification with the Palestinians as "to be on behalf of the people in voicing despair, so that evil is not silenced,dismissed disregarded - which is the way of untruth - but held, pilloried, taken for the evil it is." Israel's metaphysical identification with evil had to be constantly exposed by shedding light on the sufferings of those who worked for its destruction (emphasis mine).

The creation and dissemination of the image of the victimized and abandoned Palestinian was therefore of pivotal importance. The coalition of churches, mosques, of European and Islamic states, was cemented in a joint attack against four million Jews living on less than half of their historical land -- survivors of the tyranny of both (emphasis mine).

Happy Birthday Canada

2010-07-01T09:48:00.003-05:00

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who know Canada and those who do not. Those who don't think only of ice and snow and igloos. Those who do see Canada the way I do -- as in this picture above.

May it always look this way.

Atheists are people too

2010-06-25T08:44:00.007-05:00

The religious apologists in Canada are still beavering away, honing their sophistry to a fine art.

The issue this time concerns a decision by the Quebec Superior Court in favour of Loyola, an old Catholic school in Quebec that did not want to teach the ethics and religious curriculum handed down from the Quebec government’s Education Department, unless the school could put a Catholic spin on it, declaring that the government was acting in a “totalitarian” manner by insisting the school teach the program exactly as set down in the curriculum.

The background to this is that the province of Quebec has pioneered a program to teach children at an early age – it starts in kindergarten and goes mostly to the end of high school – about ethical considerations and the approaches to those matters taken by various religions. In short, it amounts to a comparative religion course.

The course covers the full spectrum of world religions and belief systems, with an emphasis on Christianity, Judaism and aboriginal spirituality. Critics have said it promotes a moral relativism, in which all belief systems are of equal value. In its pleadings before the court, Loyola argued that this relativism trivializes the religious experience promoted in all facets of the school’s teachings.

See here for full news story.

Several parents and religious groups in Quebec are up in arms over it because they do not want their children to be exposed to the “truths” of other religious viewpoints, since, as they would see it, other religious viewpoints have no truth to them.

In a secular society you have two choices in a public school system with respect to the equal treatment of religions; either you simply do not have anything in your curriculum about religion, leaving it entirely in the hands of the parents to expose their children to the subject, or you introduce religion in a non-judgmental way, which requires you to bring many religious outlooks to the table for discussion.

What you cannot do, and maintain secularity, is favour only one religion to the exclusion of the others.

In the year 1901 the Canadian census disclosed that 99% per cent of the population identified itself as religious and 98% of those claimed to be Christian. This is not the Canada of 2010; Christianity is declining and Islam is the fastest growing religion. Furthermore, nearly 23% of the population is non-religious and, in the younger demographic (18 – 34), it is about 35%.

Three columnists in the National Post have tackled this news story, all crowing about the rightness of the court’s decision. I will get to them, but it is interesting to consider the words of the judge.

“The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ethics and religious culture course in a lay fashion assumes a totalitarian character essentially equivalent to Galileo’s being ordered by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican universe.”

He also said:

“Canadian democratic society is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law – both of which benefit from constitutional protection.”

One might wonder why somebody with God's supreme powers would require constitutional protection, but that is a quibble about an oxymoron. It is worth reflecting, however, that God never seemed to need that protection until 1982 when he was introduced for the first time into Canada’s constitution.

The judge’s reference to the Catholic persecution of Galileo is telling. In that instance, the church was trying to shut down a competing worldview. Here it is Loyola trying to minimize alternative worldviews. Yet it is the government he accuses of being totalitarian! Go figure.

Columnist Barbara Kay tells us that, “The case was initiated by Loyola, a private, Anglo, Catholic high school located in Montreal.”

What she doesn’t tell you is that the school receives money from the government – it is not a “private” school in the strict sense of that term.

Kay continues:

Religiously committed parents and institutions such as Loyola High School, founded in 1848, believe “divergence and dissonance” and le questionnement — that is to say, creating doubt about one’s own religious and cultural identity — is the last thing a very young child needs to experience, since such a pedagogical strategy obviously undermines the serene internalization of the particular religious identity he is receiving at home.

Absorption of a particular identity does not preclude learning about other religions and cultures, and students at religious institutions such as Loyola do that already. But ERC goes further, obliging religious institutions to treat many ethical approaches as morally equivalent. Loyola High School would be refused the right to teach that, say, deferred sexual gratification and fidelity to one’s mate is a preferable ethical choice to hedonism and early sexual gratification.

Ah, disturbing the “serene internalization of the particular religious identity he is receiving at home.” What an elegant way of saying the child is being propagandized in the home by totalitarian parents. That is exactly why schools should be teaching courses in comparative religions. After all, it is supposed to be an “education” system.

And while it is true that the absorption of a particular identity does not preclude learning about other religions, I cannot see how it would preclude Loyola, which, after all, bills itself as a “Catholic” school, from also having extra-curricular programs in the Catholic faith. That is done by Catholic high schools in Ontario which are required to take students of all faiths or no faiths in return for public money.

Here is what Loyola’s lawyer said:

“Faith is omnipresent in this institution,” Loyola’s lawyer, Jacques Darche, said following a news conference at the school yesterday. “Before football games, they pray. Before a press conference, they pray. It’s quite bizarre that in the one course that you would expect to be a part of a Catholic Jesuit school, the religion program, you’re not allowed to talk about God, you’re not allowed to pray.”

So the issue is that when they discuss world religions in the classroom they can’t pray?

Give me a break.

What really seems to bug Kay is that the curriculum gives equal attention to animism and Wicca, not to mention feminism, which has the audacity to claim 27 pages in workbook compared to the 12 allotted for Catholicism.

Shucks. That sounds like a problem. Not.

Here is what I think is the real problem for these religious apologists. It is the attempt by the Quebec government to alert students to the idea that you can be a moral and ethical person without espousing any religious belief.

In short, atheists are people too.

I liked the irony in Kay’s concluding paragraph, but I am disappointed at the gobbledy-gook from such a normally good writer.

This is an excellent decision and sends a clear, strong message that secular institutions should stay out of the business of instructing children in how to think about religion. That’s not to say schools shouldn’t teach the objective evolution of various religions or religious wars and so forth in their history courses. But scientifically acquired knowledge is one thing, the inculcation of belief another. In a secular state’s education system, evidence-based facts are welcome; in-your-faith brainwashing isn’t.

The program does not involve “how to think about religion”; it is aimed at thinking about religion(s). And how can you learn about religious wars unless you understand the differences in creeds that led to such bloodshed? How does eliciting other viewpoints from other belief systems become “brainwashing”? Brainwashing is presenting only one perspective. This is absolutely Orwellian language and Kay should be ashamed of herself for resorting to it.

Next we move on to Father Raymond de Sousa who writes

What happens to the credibility of teachers when they are forced to teach their students that their Catholic faith — presumably why they choose in teach in a Catholic school in the first place — is no more valid a path to salvation than witchcraft or atheism?

This is gross distortion of what is being asked of teachers, who were consulted before the program was formalized. What has salvation, a purely Christian conceit, got to do with witchcraft and atheism? And really, isn’t the issue that is bothering the good Father the matter of the credibility of the Catholic faith, not the teachers?

Pure rubbish, Raymond.

He quotes approvingly of this by Pope John Paul II:

“Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”

Leaving aside the conclusion that calls for an example; i.e. “as history demonstrates, etc.”, I can think of few institutions that more exemplify the truth of the statement that, “ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power” than the history of the Catholic Church, starting with the Popes who preached the Crusades, through Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War that devastated Germany in the 17th century. It was not for nothing that the Catholic Church was hammered by the Reformation and the French Revolution.

Finally we come to columnist Charles Lewis, who says:

It is the word “public” that is the trip wire. There is an assumption that “public” and “religious” are two separate things.

But public money does not mean secular money.

The origin of the money that ends up in the coffers of the government comes from all sorts of people, including religious people. That is because; as if this needs to be pointed out, that religious people pay taxes like everyone else. So when was it decided that those taxpayers are beholden to a superior group of non-religious taxpayers?

I might ask, when was it decided that the tax dollars of the non-religious could be spent proselytizing a particular faith? As a non-religious person, I have no objection to religious people maintaining religious schools on their own dime, but I do object to mine being used. I don’t mind my money being used for a curriculum of comparative religion, especially one that includes the idea of no religion.

He continues:

There will be an almost knee jerk assumption that the values transmitted by the state are always superior to those taught by those who hold religious values. But this is not an argument but rather a heavy-handed tenet of the state religion called secularism.

There is an assumption in society that only religious people can be intolerant and the state is always neutral. But that is beyond naïve. Secularism has become as much a theology as religious teaching. And in a fair society, there should be room for both, not just one.

Once again, Orwellian language.

Secularism is the antithesis of religion. It is the principle by which the instruments and institutions of the state perform their public duties without discrimination in favour of or against any particular religion. Parents and religious institutions are free in our society to impart religious values and teachings to their young people. Nobody is taking that away from them.

But the state has an obligation to provide an education suitable for the 21st century and I would say that the Quebec government has taken a commendable attempt at reforming the system to better reflect the demographic realities in that province and in the country.

The Quebec government has announced its intention to appeal the decision of the court.

It is just a blatant attempt to sap world anger

2010-06-21T06:29:00.002-05:00

Boy, they don't even bother trying to hide it.

In response to Israel's announcement that it is easing the blockade of goods moving into Gaza and making the list of banned goods public, Hamas had this to say:

"Hamas rejects this decision. This is an attempt to sap international anger over the blockade on the Gaza Strip,” Hamas official Ismail Radwan told Reuters by phone from Gaza.

The important delegitimizing of Israel will be derailed if Hamas cannot continue to stir the global hatred pot against the little Jewish state, and, of course, that is the most important thing of all.

Fallout from Aqsa Parvez

2010-06-18T10:09:00.009-05:00

There have been a couple of columns in the National Post in the last few days that I feel need some rebuttal.

The first was by a member of Canada’s Parliament, Mr. Ujjal Dosanth. His piece lamented the atmosphere of political correctness that seems to prevent Canadians from speaking out about the horror of honour killings. Nowhere, however, does he seem to be aware of the horror of Human Rights tribunals in Canada that are prepared to prosecute anyone who speaks unkindly of other people’s customs.

Furthermore, he states, most curiously, that no religion “condones” honour killing. Au contraire, Mr. Dosanth. An act can be condoned by actual approval or it can be condoned by lack of objection.

In a column in Front Page Magazine, Islamic expert, Robert Spencer, has this to say about Islamic views of honour killings:

… but the problem with honor killing is sanctioned by Islamic law and custom, thus making it very difficult to stamp out in Islamic communities. Hindu dowry-killing is not sanctioned by Hindu teaching. It is against the law in India. In Islam, however, the situation is quite different: Syria recently scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’”

That’s right: two years for murder.

And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”

What’s more, a manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

No penalty – that is condonation no matter how you slice it. This is why you never hear Muslim spokespeople do anything but re-direct attention to cultural or ethnic practices whenever anyone raises the issue of honour killings and Islam.

The second column that caught my attention was one by Chris Selley, rattling on about how honour killing is such small potatoes in the great pantheon of murders in Canada (he cites statistics) and we should all just take a pill and settle down and stop calling for an overhaul of our immigration laws to stamp out this non-plague.

This is what I would call a shadow boxing column.

Who is calling for an overhaul of the immigration system to stamp out honour killings: somebody in the mainstream media, any members of Parliament, or any political party that could form the government in Canada? I know of no such movement, so Selley is simply punching aimlessly at the air.

What is missing from his statistical-analytical assessment is the horror that attaches to a crime in which parents kill their children.

Thousands of parents in this country put up with teenage children who shoot themselves up with drugs, break into homes, are involved in acts of violence, driving while drunk, and all sorts of other anti-social behaviour, while they bad-mouth their parents in the process. Such behaviour prematurely puts grey hair on the heads of the parents, but they love their offspring and stick with them until they get through these trying years and mature into productive adults.

The idea that parents would kill a teenage girl just because she wanted to wear jeans and tee-shirts and hang around with her friends at the mall is too terrible to contemplate.

Now we know why Swiss cheese is full of holes

2010-06-14T11:28:00.013-05:00

Whatever happened to Switzerland?

In a craven exhibition of kowtowing, it has secured the release of an innocent Swiss engineer, Max Goeldi, who has been held hostage by Moammar Gadhafi for two years in return for “normalization” of its relations with Libya.

Switzerland has been the subject of Gadhafi's call to jihad that started with the Swiss arrest of Gadhafi’s son and daughter-in-law on assault charges in 2008, and escalated when the Swiss people voted to ban the building of further minarets earlier this year.

The Gadhafis bought off the maid who made the assault complaint and charges were dropped. But, apparently, the police mug shot of his son got circulated on the Internet. So, in addition to getting the release of the hostage the Swiss government is also paying about $1.5 million in compensation to Gadhafi’s son.

It is hard to believe that 70 years ago this was the same country that Hitler was afraid to invade. He was prepared to invade Great Britain and he had no problem invading Russia and the rest of Western Europe and North Africa. He declared war on the United States. But Switzerland gave him pause.

Switzerland is an economically successful state with a mixed economy and few natural resources bolstering its high GDP.

Libya is a two bit little country with nothing but oil propping it up, but the triumph of Islam marches on, as another successful holy war is brought to a satisfactory conclusion with the Swiss paying the jizya and being permitted to continue their dhimmitude.

It also appears that Switzerland had help from the other weak-kneed European states in bowing before the barbarous Berber of the Barbary Coast, as this news story indicates.

It is Libya that launched the United States' navy to combat Muslim sea-going commerce raiders who were capturing American seaman and enslaving them. When the Muslim potentate of the day refused to be bought off, Congress approved a naval bill and the U.S. marines were sent to Tripoli (they still sing about it).

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has forgotten the words of the Marine Corps' anthem (actually, I think he calls it the Marine Corpse in what is perhaps a freudian slip). An American diplomat who mildly commented that declaring holy war on Switzerland might not be the best option was made to apolgize for this insult to Gaddafi.

And, as events have shown, what did he know anyway?

.....................................................................................

Picture This

2010-06-12T12:51:00.005-05:00

I have seen quite a few funny pictures of American protestors holding up signs with misspelled words over the years. Most of these were pictures taken at conservative rallies and circulated by liberals whose under-text was that conservatives are not very educated.

I have also see a lot of commentary on how the far left (the really educated) and the Islamists make common cause.

Well, if that is the case, I hope some of those liberal fellow-travellers will give the chap in the picture above a spelling lesson. He is Carlos Almonte, the religious zealot from New Jersey who was recently arrested trying to go to Somalia to fight in the jihad. The picture was taken in New York City at some Islamist street protest in 2008.

Thanks to: http://www.jihadwatch.org/

I may one day have to lick the back of this man's head -- shudder

2010-06-10T12:13:00.012-05:00

When his mother dies, I am going to become the most radical advocate for republicanism in Canada. He is an imbecile. I refuse to look at his mug on my money and my stamps.

In the same speech at Oxford intending to make soothing noises to Islam -- we should follow the path of Islam in our relationship with the environment -- he paid attention to the problem of an unsustainable environment because of overpopulation. Does he not realize that Islam leads the world in birth rates, that the Muslim birthrate in the U.K. is 10 times that of British people who resemble Prince Charles?

His audience were, as might be expected, mesmerized by his speech, as these two photos demonstrate.

Thanks to: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kUQdiyLWQ52/Prince+Charles+at+Oxford/aOeIudc7XiC

Sign of the times

2010-06-09T19:06:00.003-05:00

Saturday afternoon, Françoise Tenenbaum, Socialist adjunct delegate for Solidarity and Health to the mayor of Dijon, bestowed medals honoring the French family. The Medal of the French Family, created in 1920 by decree, modified on October 28, 1982, is an honorary distinction to worthy persons who are raising or who have raised many children, in order to pay homage to their merits and to show the gratitude of the Nation.

It is therefore a way to reward these meritorious mothers who, through their devotion and their self-sacrifice, took on the responsibilities of their role, even if these mothers themselves do not see in it any merit. (...)

Thus, 21 mothers, in the presence of their families received their medal. Eight silver medals (six or seven children): Fatiha Benhalima, Fouzia Amezane, Fatima Boularess, Aïcha Hadj-Abderrahmane, Mama Lefdou, Fatima Loubbi, Rosaria Rutigliano, Aïcha Tasry.

Thirteen bronze medals (four or five children): Saadia Ayar née Ayar, Saadia Ayar née Jabir, Medhia Bargaoui, Fatima Batta, Diane Brenot, Saâdia Brouzi, Fatima Et-Tellah, Nacéra Farsi, Fatima Haddache, Nathalie Lerbet, Zineb Oussghir, Stella-Cora Robert, Latifa Sabik.

Thanks to http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/

The Forgotten Rachels

2010-06-07T10:40:00.009-05:00

Israeli commandos fought it out with Islamists on board a vessel called the Rachel Corrie a week ago. It is named after an American pro-Palestinian activist who died while trying to stop an Israeli bulldozer from demolishing a structure believed to have been hiding a smuggling tunnel in Gaza.

A Spectator journalist, Tom Gross penned a piece called The Forgotten Rachels about all the women named Rachel who have been murdered by Palestinians and whose names are not celebrated on the stage in London, or painted on the sides of ships.

Here is a link to the article.

Thanks to Mark Steyn for bringing it to my attention.

Correction:The Rachel Corrie was not the vessel involved in the shootout, it was one of the vessels in the flotilla that docked at the Israeli port. The battle occurred on the Mavi Marmara.

Senator Eaton speaks truth to idiots

2010-04-14T07:33:00.002-05:00

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to address the state of freedom of speech in Canada.

Like other Senators who have spoken before me on this matter, I am alarmed by the erosion of this most essential right; alarmed because freedom of speech is an inextricable part of our Canadian identity. If we lose that freedom, we lose a part of our Canadian-ness.

Freedom of expression in all of its many forms – including freedom of speech, the press, the arts, and religious and cultural expression – has always been one of Canada’s most important national qualities.

It is a golden thread, woven through our great historic moments and all of our great public controversies, and it has guided us to peaceful resolutions of our disagreements and helped us reach our highest aspirations.

And, in our increasingly multicultural, pluralistic society, it ensures that everyone in Canada can find their voice, and have their say.

Freedom of speech is the great equalizer for Canadians who seek to address their claims by appealing to our national conscience.

In Canada, one doesn’t need to have power or money to make a case – merely a passion to express an idea.

This is one of the most attractive qualities we offer to new immigrants, many of whom come from countries where political or even religious dissent is a crime.

But free speech isn’t just part of our Canada today. It is also a great Canadian tradition.

In his opening remarks on this subject, Senator Finley mentioned in passing the case of Joseph Howe. I’d like to expand on that, because it set such an important precedent for the freedoms we enjoy to this day.

In 1835 – nearly 200 years ago, and a generation before Canada was born as our own country – Joseph Howe was put on trial for seditious libel, because the newspaper he published had embarrassed local Halifax politicians by exposing their corruption.

Howe knew that his own freedom was at stake – if he lost, he could have been imprisoned.

But he also knew that much more was on trial that day: the right of citizens to scrutinize and criticize their government was in question.

Some would call that the right to offend!

Here’s what he said to the jury about what would happen politically if he were convicted:

“Were you to condemn me, these [politicians] would say there is no truth in those charges, there is nothing wrong, and matters would continue in the old beaten track. If you acquit me, as I trust you will, they must form themselves into a court of inquiry for self-reformation ; they must drive out from among them those men who bring disgrace on their ranks, and mischief on the community in which they reside…”

At the time, Halifax had fewer than 15,000 citizens. It was still a very new place, and its political and legal culture were still being formed.

Howe’s case would set a precedent for Nova Scotia, and the rest of Canada, for centuries to come.

Had the jury chosen to side with the Halifax elites – the politicians and other polite company who had been offended and embarrassed by him – corruption would have flourished, and democratic criticism would have withered.

Howe’s passionate defence of freedom worked. The jury defied the judge’s instructions and acquitted Howe. And that great triumph set him on course to one day become Nova Scotia’s premier.

But let me quote one more passage from Howe’s speech.

Remember, his trial was not long after the American Revolution, and the War of 1812. Canadians and Americans had taken two separate paths, and were still wary of each other.

Howe clearly rejected the American way. He regarded their revolution as an act of rebellion and disloyalty. He was a fiercely proud Nova Scotian. But here’s what he said:

“Let not the sons of the Rebels look across the border to the sons of the Loyalists, and reproach them that their press is not free.”

Howe wasn’t trying to impress the Americans. And he certainly didn’t believe that freedom of speech was only for Americans.

In fact, the opposite: in his defence, he constantly referred to the Canadian and British traditions of liberty.

To Howe, all modern free peoples enjoyed freedom of speech. Far from being merely an American concept, Howe regarded it as quintessentially Canadian.

Joseph Howe set a great precedent. But the nature of freedom of speech is that it constantly must be supported, for there are would-be censors in every generation.

In 1935, exactly a century after Howe’s acquittal, across the country in Alberta, William Aberhart became premier, and like the political elites of Howe’s Halifax, he found Alberta’s newspapers to be troublesome and offensive.

Aberhart’s election came in the face of nearly universal opposition by the newspapers of the day.

By 1937, he was so frustrated that he introduced the Accurate News and Information Act, that required every newspaper in the province to run a rebuttal or a “correction or amplification” when ordered to do so by the government.

Alberta’s Lieutenant Governor refused to proclaim the law until the Supreme Court could assess its constitutionality; he was punished by being stripped of his official residence, car and staff.

Even without that law, Aberhart prosecuted his war against the press. The Alberta Legislature ordered that a reporter for the Edmonton Journal, Don Brown, be jailed for misquoting a government back-bencher.

Luckily, national ridicule caused the government to back down before they could arrest him.

In the spring of 1938, the Supreme Court ruled that Alberta’s Press Act was illegal, and that it violated Canada’s unwritten bill of rights – the same code of freedom that had protected Joseph Howe.

And for its efforts in fighting against Aberhart’s censorship, the Edmonton Journal was awarded a special Pulitzer Prize, the first time the citation was awarded outside of the United States.

It was a great Canadian moment.

There are many of these moments in our history – some much more recently.

It wasn’t until 1955 that the University of Toronto shut down its “Art Room”, where, until then, students had to prove they were free of “mental problems” before reading controversial books like Ulysses. The books were later moved to open shelves.

In the 1980s, in the case of Vancouver’s Little Sisters book store, Canada Customs followed Memorandum D911, which arbitrarily declared any description of gay sexuality to be obscene – a vague rule that was eventually thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Little Sisters continued its fight against Customs and Canada Post well into the 1990s.

And until Prime Minister Brian Mulroney overturned the order 48 hours later, customs police briefly made Canada the only Western democracy to seize copies of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, after Iran’s fatwa.

We’re in the 21st century now, and one would think that censorship would be obsolete, universally considered a relic of less enlightened times.

But nowadays it’s not prudish customs agents or thin-skinned politicians who are the main threat.

It’s Canada’s “human rights commissions”, which would have struck George Orwell as being perfectly named.

These commissions were started with the best of intentions – to help the poor and the weak from being bullied out of a job or an apartment.

But they have become censors, policing not death threats or incitement to violence, or any other real crime, but rather the fake crime of hurt feelings. They have become what author Kathy Shaidle calls a “Tyranny of Nice”.

Section 13 of our own Canadian Human Rights Act makes it against the law to evoke feelings of “hatred or contempt”. But hate is a normal human feeling. What’s not normal is to make those feelings against the law.

Of course we don’t want people to turn their hard feelings into crimes –that’s why we have the Criminal Code. But to have a government agency monitoring the Internet, searching for certain political views to prosecute is anathema to a liberal democracy.

In 2008, Maclean’s magazine was put on trial for a week for publishing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book on Islam.

And the Western Standard’s publisher, Ezra Levant, was prosecuted for 900 days for publishing pictures of the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

Those are two famous cases. But there are plenty more people who have been investigated by the government merely for having a certain point of view.

Like pastor Stephen Boissoin (buzz-ON), who was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta human rights commission.

And Father Alphonse de Valk of Toronto’s Catholic Insight magazine, and the Christian Heritage Party and Bill Whatcott of Saskatchewan

Each of these men were prosecuted for expressing their religious belief. Not for doing anything harmful; just for saying something that someone else found offensive.

This shows a systemic bias in our human rights commissions – and that’s exactly the problem with vague, political censorship. It’s not about the law anymore. It’s about political favourites.

But that’s just not how we settle our disagreements in Canada. We don’t have the state intervene in political or religious disagreements. We let people decide for themselves.

There is a common thread to each of these free speech battles.

In each case, the targets of censorship were declared “offensive” or “troublesome”. But in each case, the success of those troublesome critics helped make Canada more inclusive and more democratic.

Canada is the most peaceful and tolerant country in the world, precisely because we allow people to disagree with each other passionately – and even offensively.

That clash of ideas is often noisy and occasionally upsetting.

But through those vigorous discussions, we have been able to navigate our way through hundreds of years of challenges – and our national purpose has never been stronger.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is not just an abstract Canadian ideal.

It is an active, living part of being Canadian. It is an integral part of the Canadian identity. Our citizens use it every day, more often than any other freedom.

To study our history is to see each generation of Canadians stand up for that freedom when it is challenged like it has been several times recently with the Steyn, Levant and Coulter episodes.

And to learn from our history is to know that we must protect that great inheritance today and whenever in the future it may be challenged again.

Thank you.”

Sabbatical

2010-03-30T15:41:00.002-05:00

I will be out of the country for a month and will resume blogging in May.

Oh, Ann. Say it ain't so.

2010-03-24T11:51:00.005-05:00

Word is circulating that American conservative political commentator, Ann Coulter, is considering making a complaint to the Canada Human Rights Commission because she was “threatened” by a letter from the Provost of the University of Ottawa.

Coulter is on a three-University speaking tour. She spoke at the University of Western Ontario without a lot of fuss and she was supposed to speak at Ottawa yesterday, but her appearance was cancelled because about 2,000 protestors showed up to try to prevent her from speaking. They succeeded.

The Provost sent her a letter prior to her travels to Canada lecturing her on responsible speech and advising her to bone-up on Canadian free speech limitations and libel law before she opens her mouth. Some people think the disclosure of this letter in the media and blogosphere probably encouraged the protestors to go out and close her down.

Coulter is now claiming she is a victim of discrimination and abuse because of this letter.

My advice to Coulter is to nix the complaint.

I didn’t read the letter as threatening in any way. It was stupid, no doubt about that. And maybe the real complaint should be why the taxpayers are expected to fund Ontario universities when they employ people of the limited intellectual caliber of this Provost. But, that is not Ann’s issue.

The reason I would advise against proceeding in this manner is that she will just act to legitimize the HRCs. Mssrs. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have spent a lot of time “de-normalizing” (Levant’s conceit) these PC monsters and by submitting to their jurisdiction, Coulter gives them license to once more try to stifle free speech.

I think the Provost was perfectly entitled to express his opinions, just as Coulter was. She should not be an agent acting to prevent his right to free speech by resorting to the government to enshrine her “victimhood”.

The larger issue, which we need to consider, is how we prevent mobs from shutting down free speech on our campuses. Clearly, it is a problem the universities are unable to solve. We have to solve it for them. No longer should we view them as these private enclaves of entitlement governed solely by their own rules.

ADDENDUM: When I wrote the foregoing, I was unaware that Allan Rock was the President of the University of Ottawa. Now the scales have fallen from my eyes and I understand why this whole event got completely out of hand.

I guess we will just have to wait for the 22nd century for the rubes to catch up

2010-03-18T17:39:00.004-05:00

In the 21st century it is amazing how the world of magic still pervades the most scientifically and technologically advanced societies.

When I first saw the documentary Jesus Camp, I scoffed at the fundamentalist Protestant Reverend Rebecca Fletcher, putting defensive spells (blessings) on her laptop computer and the building’s electrical panel so that the Devil wouldn’t screw with her PowerPoint presentation. Later she is seen admonishing her young charges to avoid Harry Potter, a young man in fiction known to put defensive spells around his friends to ward off evil.

Yet here we are again, with a recent interview with the Vatican’s chief exorcist, telling us of all the demons he has cast out from people they possessed. He claims to know of 70,000 cases where demons possessed humans.

Such people are only a brain cell or two away from considering the burning of witches to be a heritage ceremony to be lamented for its decline.

I have just finished reading Richard Dawkins’ excellent new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, which is a tour de force in setting out the scientific evidence for evolution, 200 years after the birth of its discoverer, Charles Darwin.

In an appendix, Dawkins reports a number of polls that have been conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom and worldwide asking people, in different ways whether they think evolution is true. Depressingly, scientifically and technologically advanced nations such as the U.S. and the U.K. score poorly, with more people doubting evolution as described by Darwin’s natural selection than other explanations. He shows Turkey as being very low on the evolution acceptance scale with only 27% accepting evolution and 51% rejecting it.

U.S. and U.K figures are not much better, but Dawkins suspects that the Turkish numbers would be typical for Islamic countries. He cites the case of an organization in Britain called the Al-Nasr Trust which has produced leaflets that are distributed by Muslim medical students claiming Darwin’s theory is false. He point out that the ANT is a registered charity, so it is a tax-subsidized entity arguing against solid science within scientific education facilities. There isn't anything useful in science produced from Islamic societies in the last 1,000 years, but there they are mocking the discovery of one of the most important scientists of all time, and being fiancially rewarded by the government of the U.K. for their efforts.

Dawkins says it is very easy for a religious organization to obtain charitable status under Britain’s laws (which were copied nearly verbatim in Canada), whereas a bona vide charity (one that actually does real charitable work, such as advancing education) must jump through a number of hoops in order to obtain the same status.

He writes:

I recently established a charitable foundation dedicated to promoting “Reason and Science”. During the protracted, extremely expensive, and ultimately successful negotiation to obtain charitable status, I received a letter from the British Charity Commission…which contained the following: “It is not clear how the advancement of science tends towards the mental and moral improvement of the public. Please provide us with evidence of this or explain how it is linked to the advancement of humanism and rationalism.” Religious organizations, by contrast, are assumed to benefit humanity without any obligation to demonstrate it and even, apparently, if they are actively engaged in promoting scientific falsehood.

In light of the magic spell casting, still conducted by elements of the Christian faith one could add to that, “even if they are actively involved in spreading about the most archaic and nonsensical ideas.”

My kind of guy -- off with the mask and down with the gauntlet

2010-03-12T13:23:00.005-05:00

International wars sometimes start in strange ways.

World War I started with the murder of a member of the Austrian nobility by a Serbian nationalist, which was followed by a declaration of war amongst the major European powers of the day. Nobody really saw that one coming.

Franklin Roosevelt tried to interfere with Japan’s takeover of Manchuria and pretty much guaranteed that Japan would eventually attack the United States, end its neutrality and ensure its entry into World War II. It is arguable that most Americans didn’t really see that one coming either.

Nineteen Muslim airline hijackers sent the American military into Afghanistan and Iraq. Saddam Hussein was as surprised as anybody when the U.S. tanks and aircraft rolled into his country.

There is a new conflict brewing and it receives almost no attention in North America. It also started with an innocuous beginning.

In 2008, Hannibal Gaddafi, the son of Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, was arrested in Geneva, Switzerland for allegedly assaulting two of his servants. The old man erupted, arresting two Swiss businessmen in Libya for violating “residency” rules.

According to the February 26, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal:

Then, last November, Swiss voters approved a referendum to ban the construction of minarets on mosques. Some analysts in Switzerland said they believed the strong vote in favor of the ban—58% of voters supported the referendum—stemmed in part from resentment in Switzerland over the issue of the businessmen in Libya. Soon after the election, Libya's government-controlled news agency Jana branded the vote "racist."

But while the vote raised the ire of political and religious leaders in the Muslim world, it hasn't generated violence or a backlash against Swiss interests abroad, as the Swiss government had originally feared.

After the vote, Swiss efforts to convince Tripoli to release the men failed, and political observers said Libya's continued refusal to release them was in reaction to the minaret vote. Earlier this week, Libya freed one of the men after a court overturned his conviction on appeal, and he has returned to Switzerland. The other man, Max Göldi, the country head in Libya for Swiss engineering group ABB Ltd., has begun a four-month prison sentence in Libya.

Bern has restricted the granting of Swiss visas to Libyan citizens. That, in turn, has prompted Tripoli to block the entry of some European citizens into Libya. Tripoli has stopped issuing visas to citizens of the Schengen passport-free zone, which includes most of the European Union as well as Switzerland.
On Thursday, Italy said Libya may renege on a deal to help control the flow of undocumented immigrants into the EU because of the visa spat with Switzerland. Libya is often used as a departure point by such immigrants for southern Europe, particularly Italy.

Italy, which has close business links with Libya, has accused Switzerland of misusing the Schengen agreement and taking its members "hostage" by instituting the ban, which had forced other Schengen nations to bar travel by Libyans as well.
Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said the quarrel put the Schengen zone at risk and could further strain relations with Libya. Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf met with EU ministers on Thursday to discuss possible solutions to the travel situation.

But the issue has escalated beyond mere visa and passport fiddling.

In February, 2010 Gaddafi called for “jihad” (holy war) against Switzerland:

We will not give up Jihad, because it is a religious duty. Jihad constitutes a religious duty and self-defense. It is the defense of the religion, fighting for the sake of Allah, defense of the Prophet Muhammad, of the Koran, of the mosques. … Whoever destroys the mosques of Allah before the eyes of the Muslims is worthy of having Jihad launched against him. If Switzerland were situated on our border, we would fight it, for destroying the mosques of Allah. Jihad against those who destroy the mosques of Allah and their minarets is [true] Jihad, and not terrorism. … Switzerland is an infidel and sinful country which destroys mosques. Jihad, with all possible means, should be declared against it.

Any Muslim who buys Swiss products is an infidel. Let Muslims all over the world know this. There are people here from all over the Islamic world. Any Muslim anywhere in the world who deals with Switzerland is an infidel against Islam, Muhammad, Allah, and the Koran. If you continue to have dealings with Switzerland, and the people who portrayed the Prophet Muhammad in the most abominable way in their newspapers. … If you continue to have dealings with them, to buy their products, to support them, to accept their tourists, to accept their planes, to accept their ships, and to host their embassies — you are not Muslims. Any Muslim must boycott them.

Boycott Switzerland, its products, its planes, its ships, and its embassies. Boycott this sinful infidel community, which attacks the mosques of Allah. The Muslim masses must head towards all the airports in the Islamic world, and prevent any Swiss plane from landing. They should head to the ports, and prevent any Swiss ship from coming in. They should comb the shops and markets and remove the Swiss products. Allah said: “Let them find harshness in you.”

This might pass for the normal, fatuous, ravings of a megalomaniac dictator except:

Qaddafi’s government has cut its oil supplies to Switzerland, withdrawn Libyan capital from Swiss banks, and moved to close all Swiss companies active in Libya — Swiss Air having already been shut down. And within a week, by Thursday, March 4, Qaddafi’s call for jihad against Switzerland — manifested as economic jihad, for now — was endorsed by Arab League ministers meeting in Cairo. Ministers from Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Djibouti, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE , Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Tunisia each signed a document in support of Libya’s actions, which also denounced Switzerland as “racist.”

Qaddafi’s jihad-sanctioning diatribe and its endorsement by the Arab League ignore the Swiss electorate’s legitimate concerns expressed through their political leadership, notably the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). These actions towards the Swiss and Western Europe in general by Qaddafi, his Arab League supporters, and other Muslim political and religious leaders illustrate simultaneous denial and imperialistic threat — archetypal Islamic behaviors toward infidel civilizations.

The Swiss plebiscite did not disenfranchise any Muslims from worshipping or building centers of worship, it was only aimed at the architectural adornment of a minaret, and did not deal with those that have already been built.

It is possible that Gaddafi’s call to jihad may do more to unite Europe against the world of Islam than a 100 Geert Wilders ever could.

If your knowledge of Gaddafi is somewhat scant, go to this website for a more intimate look.

Gilders -- worth repeating

2010-03-05T11:52:00.001-05:00

"Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail"

Geert Wilders
Speech House of Lords, London
Friday the 5th of March 2010

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film 'Fitna'. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (...) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book 'The River War' from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: "The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome". End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent". End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' "the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message". As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book 'The Second World War', a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill's comparison of the Quran and 'Mein Kampf' is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That's a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women's rights are being destroyed. Burqa's, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don't get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour's immigration strategy was, and I quote, to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date". If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn't really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women's rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn't in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I'm being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to 'Mein Kampf'. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial... Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing 'legal jihad'. This is Islamic 'lawfare'. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear".

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can't wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: "We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow". That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word 'London' is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words 'This is London' were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be "This is London"? Or will it be "This is Londonistan"? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Those annoying Christians

2010-03-02T12:18:00.010-05:00

So, how does your organization feel about the representation of Canada shown in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics? Inuit art was strongly featured and is totally blended with their religious culture. It was used to represent our northern culture but doesn't represent the majority of Canadians either...yet we show it off to the world as if it is somehow intrinsic to our Canadian existance. Why should their religious beliefs be shown to the world when you would like to quash any mention of our larger and still majority Christian beliefs? I'm sick of the minority telling the majority we have to be tolerant of their beliefs when they are openly hostile to those of the majority. Suck it up...our anthem is beautiful and "God keep our Land" reflects the beliefs of a majority of Canadians in "a" God. I question your statistics. Whether or not Canadians believe in the Christian God, most believe in some kind of higher power or "god" and thus the term God is not offensive to them. Even the Muslims believe in a God named Allah. True Atheists are a very small minority.

The foregoing was a comment -- reproduced exactly as received -- that came to me from a Christian regarding an old posting on this blog about the initiative of the Canadian Secular Alliance to get God written out of the National Anthem of Canada.

I am going to assume the writer to be male for the sake of clarity in what I say next.

I think he displays a level of bigotry towards those of different beliefs or non-belief that ought to be worrying when he couples it with a reference to majority rule.

This is a liberal democracy and one of its hallmarks is that society tries to balance different rights and expectations amongst the citizenry. Clearly, we don’t all share the same beliefs and some of us, like the writer above, disdain those that don’t conform to his own beliefs. He may be “sick” of this balancing act, but I would pass back to him the same advice he gave me; namely, suck it up, because you live in the best country in the world where people of all nations, creeds, cultures and ethnic origins freely go about their lives, cherishing the values, institutions and benefits of our liberal democracy.

Those of us who do not believe in a supreme being don’t wish to “quash any mention” of Christian beliefs. The writer is free to go to any street corner in any town and city in this country, or stand outside any liquor store, and sing Onward Christian Soldiers at the top of his lungs. I can always walk away from him if the lyrics offend me. He can go to his house of worship and do the same thing. I don’t have to enter it and listen. He can pray in his own home, office, car, boat, RV, tent, or what have you.

This is a free country and, even though I don’t believe in flapping angels, talking snakes and all the other colourful stuff handed down to us from the ancient sandal-wearing, Bronze Age, desert-dwellers, I support your freedom to believe any old wives’ tales, myths, legends or other magical kingdom nonsense as you wish.

I don’t have any issue with you freely practicing your religion anywhere with the exception that it should not intrude on public institutions or into public places and in public practices that ought to remain secular and free from religious dogma and to which I may wish to resort or enjoy without first having to pay deference to your deity.

The National Anthem belongs to all Canadians, not just Christian Canadians, or any other deists. So why, if I wish to express my patriotism by singing it in public, am I required to pay homage to God? The words were first penned in 1908 and it wasn’t until the 1980s that the Christians in Parliament decided to inflict their religious beliefs on the rest of us by inserting God into the song.

It is particularly galling to me since I used to sing it joyously at school when it was just a rousing anthem to the country and had not been converted into a song of prayer to the Christian God. Now, I don’t sing it because I find myself stumbling over the God line.

Christians ought to become more familiar with their own religious textbook, the Bible, if they intend spout off on this subject. Matthew 6:6 advises that prayer is supposed to be a private matter, not a public demonstration. You can’t get more public in prayer than invoking God to keep your country strong and free in its national anthem.

The writer displays that all-too-common Christian victim mentality; it is Christians who are being denied their rightful place in the firmament. Get over yourselves. The Roman Empire disappeared nearly two millennia ago. You have come a long way from days of being thrown to the lions, brothers and sisters.

It is pretty funny, not to mention highly annoying, when you consider that Christians are forever banging on your door wanting to push their literature at you. They accost you on street corners, or set up kiosks and booths at public events. They put up billboards declaiming all sorts of radical testimony about the Devil and Darwin. They have their own radio shows and television networks, and on Sunday mornings you really have to channel surf to get away from them.

When was the last time your peace and tranquility was interrupted by a pair of atheist strangers at your front door wanting to engage you in discussion about your beliefs and shoving their secular pamphlets into your hands?

When I drive out in the country I am treated to giant signs urging me to “Repent and accept Christ”. Barns are painted with “Christ is the Answer” slogans. I stop behind cars and read “Jesus is my co-pilot” bumper stickers. Just above that is the little fish symbol. When I spend the weekend at my in-laws in a little town of 500 population, my Sunday morning rest is shattered by loud church bells ringing from a half a dozen nearby Christian churches.

Everywhere I go my senses of sight and sound are assaulted by the Christian God, intruding on my enjoyment of the public space, and offending my sense of reason and my beliefs.

Yet, a year or so ago, when a group of freethinkers decided to have a little fun and launched a short bus ad campaign suggesting the non-existence of God, you would have thought they were advocating the destruction of western civilization. The evangelical leader, Charles McVety, thundered against them as “attack ads”, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary exclaimed how offensive he found these ads. Nearly half the municipalities declined to approve the application for the ads even though some of them had previously approved religious advertising on transit vehicles.

It is odd that these ads can be considered an attack on Christianity, but all of those public promotions of God and Jesus, so beloved of Christians, that I have mentioned, are never seen by them as an attack on atheists. They are.

If it were limited simply to that level of hypocrisy, it might be endurable. But that is not enough for them. Christians get themselves elected or appointed to various boards and commissions and immediately start trying to censor books from public libraries or school libraries that my taxes have paid for. They even go to the extent of trying to ban a writer’s work, not because he wrote anything particularly derogatory about a religion, but because he publicly declared himself to be an atheist.

When did you ever hear of an activist atheist on such a body trying to restrict the circulation of the Bible or other religiously-themed works, or trying to ban works that were not religious, but were written by authors who are Christians? In the United States the activism of Christians has effectively shut down the teaching of the science of evolution in public and high school science classes in many states.

One Christian denomination in Ontario has its own entire school system funded at public expense, even putting the nation in violation of an international treaty to which it is a signatory. Religion is protected as a public charity under the taxing statutes so that its income is sheltered from normal taxation. Its vast property holdings are free from municipal taxation. Religion, and particularly the majority Christian faith, live large and fat off the taxpayers of this country. And we, the non-religious, are expected to have to make up some of the shortfall in tax revenue as a result of these shelters for God with not only no thanks from Christians, but with a sneer.

Who is the real victim in all of this?

It is high time we put an end to the public subsidization of religion. Atheists and the other non-religious folks don’t give a rat’s rectum about your beliefs and your belief institutions, or your entitlement to them, but they should not have to pay for them. You can pay your own way. After all, as you say, you are the great majority, so it shouldn’t be that difficult for you to pony up enough to keep your crosses flying and your fish swimming without picking my pocket while you are scorning me in the process.

Atheists are in indeed a small minority, but including them amongst the category of people who declare no religious affiliation leads to a much larger number. The official statistics can be found in the 2001 Canadian census. Here is an extract from the government of Canada website encapsulating those census results:

In 2001, 7 out of every 10 people still identified themselves as either Roman Catholic or Protestant.

Census data showed a continuation of a long-term downward trend in the population who report Protestant denominations. The number of Roman Catholics increased slightly during the 1990s, but their share of the total population fell marginally.
At the same time, the number of Canadians who reported religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism has increased substantially.

Much of the shift in the nation's religious makeup during the past several decades is the result of the changing sources of immigrants, which has created a more diverse religious profile. As well, many major Protestant denominations that were dominant in the country 70 years ago, such as Anglican and United Church, are declining in numbers, in part because their members are aging and fewer young people are identifying with these denominations.

In addition, far more Canadians reported that they had no religion. This group accounted for 16% of the population in 2001, compared with 12% a decade earlier.
In 2001, Roman Catholics were still the largest religious group, drawing the faith of just under 12.8 million people, or 43% of the population, down from 45% in 1991. The proportion of Protestants, the second largest group, declined from 35% of the population to 29%, or about 8.7 million people.

Combined, the two groups represented 72% of the total population in 2001, compared with 80% a decade earlier.

The population of Canada in 2001 was 30 million, which means that 4,800,000 people ticked the “no religion” box on the form. This is the largest demographic grouping after Christians and is a far larger body of people than all the other religions combined. It is also the fastest growing demographic, as this 2008 Harris-Decima poll indicates.

The next religious census will occur in 2011 and I would fully expect to see much larger numbers of non-believers and a continued erosion of Christian dominance.

Addendum (March 8)

In response to a comment below by Bruce challenging my assertion that there are many states in the U.S. that do not teach evoloution, I reproduce this map that was first published in 2002 in the Scientific American. I do acknowledge, however, that I may be displaying a bias when I attribute the non-teaching to Christian influence on education.

Sophistry and Islam

2010-02-22T19:56:00.005-05:00

Now here is as fine a piece of sophistry as has come along in a while.

It seems this Muslim gentleman in Arizona took exception to his daughter becoming "too westernized" and ran her down with his vehicle, killing her in the process. He admitted it was an honour killing. He is being tried for first degree murder for which Arizona law prescribes the death penalty. His lawyer, however, is arguing that he should not be subjected to the death penalty less the public (especially the Muslim public) gets the idea that it is Christians who are putting Muslims to death.

The law is supposed to be neutral and even-handed and issues such as race, religion, ethnicity, etc., are irrelevant. The religion of the prosecutor and the judge ought to be irrelevant to the outcome.

What does this mean? Can only Muslim judges pass sentence on Muslim defendants?

What if the defendant were an atheist? Would one require an atheist judge so that religious folk are not seen to be killing non-believers?

What the defense lawyer is really arguing is that killing this defendant will stir up the Muslims and then watch out; the usual "let's not shake the wasps nest" fear argument that seems to hold much water in our society.

Geert Wilders

2010-02-08T12:14:00.003-05:00

Everybody who believes in free speech should read these short essays.

And watch this video.

The ever-popular populism

2010-01-26T13:24:00.027-05:00

------------------------------LINDA McCUAIG ------------------------

The lesson for today class is on “populism”.

The idea for this lesson was triggered by an unintentionally funny column in today’s Toronto Star, by leftist writer, Linda McCuaig. She is commenting on the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, taking the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in the state of Massachusetts.

McCuaig says:

It's the notion that he's a populist that sticks in my craw.
It's his alleged populism that led to his dramatic upset win last week in Ted Kennedy's old seat.

Right-wingers like Brown hide the elitism of their agenda by presenting themselves as ordinary working types, as truck-driving, gun-toting folk who may have just slaughtered something with their bare hands in the back shed.

Right-wingers can’t be populists? Where does that come from?

Populism is not the prerogative of either the left or the right. It is an expression, articulated by a leader or would-be leader, of the aspirations of the people.

It works like this. The candidate licks his or her finger and sticks it up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing in politics and then says, “If that is the direction the people are marching, then, by golly, I am going to run to the front of the parade, grab the marshal’s baton, and lead them.”

Certainly, during his election campaign I would have pegged Barack Obama as a populist with all his appeals to hope and change and a New Jerusalem for the United States. But that would be OK for McCuaig, because Obama is clearly a leftie, so he owns the turf, according to her.

She says:

After being elected with a mandate for change, Barack Obama has seemed powerless to change much, continuing the giveaways and deference to Wall Street.
No wonder the people are in revolt.

Stung by Brown's victory, Obama moved last week to recapture some populist ground, announcing previously stalled plans to bring in tough new banking regulations.

Interesting, since the very first thing Obama demonstrated when he nailed the office of President is that he is anything but a populist. He is of the powerful elite class (Columbia, Harvard) and associates himself with other powerful elites. His picks for cabinet posts showed that. And, after all, if you are going to count Warren Buffet as one of your important advisers, how populist can you be?

The Pew Research Center just released its findings on the political concerns of the American people. Here is the chart from that report.

Obama has so far struck out on the economic recovery, which is the top priority of Americans. Ditto for jobs, the second most important concern. He has failed on the terrorism front (Fort Hood, Detroit), the third highest category.

He hasn’t done anything on social security and his education initiatives, whatever they might be, are still in the starting gate. The confusing health care bill appears to be damaging Medicare, or at least, is putting it in some doubt.

Deficit reduction ranks ahead of health care and the military ranks ahead of health insurance. Financial regulation is way down the list and, coming in dead last, is global warming.

So, the President is focused on things like global warming, reforming health care, and financial regulation, and appears to be paying no attention to deficit reduction which ranks as the seventh most important thing on a list of 21 concerns. In fact, on deficits, he seems to be going in the opposite direction, which can only make this issue climb farther up the list of importance.

He is marching in the opposite direction to the people and leading his own parade of elites.

Simply attacking big banks is not going to recapture populist sentiment for Obama when financial regulation ranks so low in order of importance.

Anyway, why does McCuaig think populism is such an important agenda?

About Brown, she says:

Meanwhile, beware of truck-driving centerfolds in sheep's clothing. Underneath that buff populist skin may be just another wily wolf working for Wall Street.

Or, one might add, beware of populists who are working for things other than Wall Street.

Here are four pictures of famous populists. The first two were lefties and the last two were right-wingers. Can you name them? Hints - the last one was a Republican and the second last was a Democrat.

The lesson really is to beware of populism period.

Truth on trial

2010-01-20T11:01:00.006-05:00

The Netherlands is littered with the graves of thousands of Canadian soldiers and airman who gave their lives to liberate Holland from the tyranny of the Nazis.

I wonder what those men would think of the Dutch today if they could see the country that was reborn from the ashes of German occupation. Would they think their sacrifice was wasted?

In Amsterdam, in 1944, if you strode into the public square, stood on a bench, and denounced Nazism, you would likely have been murdered on the spot, if any Nazis were present. If they weren’t, chances are, a fellow countryman, likely a government functionary, wishing to appease and curry favour with the occupiers, would have turned you in.

In 2010, if you were to stand in the same spot and say the same things about Islam, you have a pretty good chance of being shot or knifed to death by Islamists, considering the fates of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh. You have an equally good chance of being turned on by the government functionaries and driven from the country, as was Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or put on trial by those same people, as is the fate of our friend, the popular nationalist politician, Geert Wilders.

Wilders goes on trial today for saying rude things about Islam and for wanting to preserve Dutch and European culture in the face of another tyrannical “ism”, Islamism.

Unlike the situation of the last generation when the country was occupied by a foreign invader promulgating a nasty, brutal religion of its own making, this new “ism” is a hostile religion that was invited in by the Dutch and made as comfortable as possible and appeased at every turn in the road, no matter how suicidal its demands are to the historic nature and character of the Dutch nation.

Many commentators talk about how this is a battle over free speech.

In part, it is.

Free speech doesn’t exist in Europe, or in Canada for that matter, and hasn’t for some time. It resulted from a unilateral surrender in an undeclared war long ago.

All the members of the EU have passed anti-speech legislation intended to prevent people from spreading the evil doctrines perpetrated by the Nazis, but these laws have now been used to prevent citizens from discussing another doctrine they find evil; namely, Islam.

In Canada, we can trace the exact date free speech died. It perished in the Supreme Court of Canada on December 13, 1990 when the high court upheld legislated speech-limiting laws, giving the government of Canada the license to prosecute people for speaking their minds even when what they speak is the truth and even when that discourse is of a political and public nature.

But at least we have not yet descended to the scurrilous level of using the court to try to penalize and destroy a legitimate leader of a political party with seats in the legislatures of the Netherlands and the EU for expressing his constituents’ viewpoints, as the Dutch are doing.

This is nothing less than an attack on democracy.

For some time, I have been reading his website, listening to his speeches and watching his interviews, and I have concluded that Wilders is a very principled person. I have not observed that he has said or written one word on this subject that is not truthful

It is truth that is on trial.

How the enemy can hide in plain sight

2010-01-18T10:19:00.005-05:00

U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, is blaming his own department for its attitudes and the military command structure for lapses that allowed Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, to progress through the system. As many as eight officers may be held to account.

The day after the shooting, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, the top military man in the U.S. military structure, went on a media blitz to assure serving Muslims that the military would keep a sharp eye out to make sure there no repercussions against them because of Major Hasan’s attack and that “diversity is our strength, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

Well, which is it Mr. Secretary?

Do you want your officers to implement Political Correctness -- which is the reason why no action had been taken against Hasan -- or do you want them to keep a better weather-eye on Muslim radicals and root them out?

If PC rules the day, these officers should be given medals for respecting diversity, not prosecuted.

In the 86 pages of the Pentagon review of the shooting, not once does it focus on Major Hasan’s motivation as an Islamist, although apparently there is a separate classified report that deals specifically with Hasan.

According to Gates, the problem with the Defense Department is that:

We have not done enough to adapt to the evolving security threat that has emerged over the past decade. The department is burdened by 20th Century attitudes rooted in the Cold War.

He says that as if it were a bad thing.

Let us consider those 20th century attitudes during the Cold War. They could be summarized as follows:

Communism is evil. It is our enemy and we must be diligent in defeating it. We must not allow our military establishment to be infiltrated and undermined by communists.

It seems to me if you simply substitute Islamism for Communism you pretty much have the attitude you need to get rid of the future Major Hasan’s before they become a problem. But you do have to identify the new “ism” first.

Somebody ought to remind Secretary Gates that we won the Cold War with those attitudes. Maybe if the DOD could bring itself to terms with the idea that it is Islamism that is the enemy it would get better handle on how to defeat it.

Helpful advice for Americans going to the Vancouver Olympic Games

2010-01-15T16:28:00.018-05:00

Americans arriving to enjoy Vancouver Olympic Games

The U.S. government is at it again. Along with the extremely useless colour-coded warning signs at airports that seem to be permanently stuck on orange (high terrorist alert), the government is now warning U.S. tourists who are attending the Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver next month to be on the alert for terrorists.

"Al-Qaeda's demonstrated capability to carry out sophisticated attacks against sizable structures - such as ships, large office buildings, embassies and hotels - makes it one of the greatest potential threats to the Olympics," the U.S. State Department said in a fact sheet on the Games posted on its website.

No specific credible threats have been identified, the U.S. government said. However, Americans planning to attend Olympic events or participate in large-scale public gatherings during the Winter Games should use caution and be alert to their surroundings, the advisory said.

Americans are advised to be especially alert when outside Olympic venues. "As security increases in and around Olympic venues, terrorists could shift their focus to more unprotected Olympic venues, open spaces, hotels, railway and other transportation systems, churches, restaurants and other sites not associated with the Olympics."

As an aide to potential American visitors, I thought I would add some specificity to the State Department’s unhelpful and completely ass-covering advice.

It is important to note that many people in Vancouver look like terrorists. I don’t know what it is about the west coast, but boy do the weirdoes ever like flock there. For an American, stay on orange alert the whole time you are there.

In case you are wondering what an Al-Qaeda guy looks like, below is typical example. Look closely at his features and his dress.

Also, Al-Qaeda has been known to recruit women, so examine the appearance of this one for clues.

Now here is the most likely person you might meet in Vancouver. He is not Al-Qaeda, he is a Sikh. Note closely the difference between his appearance and Al-Qaeda guy. It should be obvious.

You will find Sikhs predominately driving taxis, so they will be around hotels, restaurants, railways and other transportation sites. It is most unlikely to find them in churches, unlike Al-Qaeda guys who apparently will pray anywhere.

You will find Sikhs in abundance at malls. But why would you be going to malls anyway? The goods are not nearly as worthwhile purchasing as your own American offerings in terms of selection, styles, sizes, etc. and you will be paying big Canadian taxes you would avoid by shopping for the same unnecessary stuff in the U.S.

Why should you distinguish Sikhs from Al-Qaeda? Well, for one thing Sikhs don’t generally subscribe to the view that the only good American is a dead one. The same cannot be said for Al-Qaeda.

Sikhs sometimes wear a ceremonial dagger called a Kirpan. It is legal in Canada, even in schools. Al-Qaeda guys usually sport an AK-47, but as these are illegal in Canada it would be exceptional if you spotted somebody with one of these in Vancouver. However, if you do, leave the area at once.

You don’t want to cause a panic by alerting security personnel to the presence of a terrorist unless you are completely sure the person in question is an Al-Qaeda guy, because the immediate vicinity will be quarantined and you will be held up for hours by police and soldiers and will lose your restaurant reservations.

To avoid this problem, you could employ self-help, the way the passengers on the Detroit-bound plane did recently.

Stroll up to him and engage him in casual chit chat. Ask him how long he is will be in Vancouver. Ask him what he thinks of the city. If he indicates that he is here for the Olympics, ask him what his favourite sport is. Then while he is thinking about his answer, quickly ask him who he thinks is the world’s best cricket bowler. If he doesn’t immediately snap out two or three names that all sound South Asian then you might be dealing with an Al-Qaeda guy who will looked puzzled and simply shrug his shoulders.

If that happens then ask him if he likes the Biathlon. If he is an Al-Qaeda guy he has got to like that one. Anything involving shooting is big turn-on for these folks. You can seal the deal by immediately asking him if he knows the muzzle-velocity for an AK-47. If he quickly responds with 2,300 feet per second, you have pretty much nailed him. A Sikh will only looked puzzled and shrug his shoulders.

Here is a sure fire way to sniff out Al-Qaeda guy. Wait until you are in a crowded elevator or standing in a long line waiting to get into an event or a restaurant. Then shout as loud as you can, "Takbir!" If the suspect shoots up his fist and responds with "Allahu Akbar!" you know he’s the real deal.

I hope this has been more helpful than the advice of Hillary Clinton’s minions and, if you can leave your terror aside for few days, enjoy yourself.

Welcome to Canada.

More Caledonia nonsense from the Toronto Star

2010-01-11T12:33:00.022-05:00

Angelo Persichilli had a column in yesterday’s Toronto Star that rhymes with his name; to wit, silly.

He is trying to defend the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Julian Fantino, over the OPP’s handling of the Caledonia file. A private citizen has launched a lawsuit that claims Mr. Fantino exceeded his authority by writing to the local municipal council threatening police retaliation if the council endorsed an anti-aboriginal protest march organized by an outsider (a non-resident of Caledonia).

Mr. Persichilli is saying that the OPP cannot police natives because they will not be backed up by the politicians. He says that this means there is no law.

Nonsense.

The law didn’t go away just because the politicians ran and hid under the nearest convenient rock, which we can all agree they did.

This Ontario Liberal government held an expensive public hearing to demonize the former Progressive Conservative government and particularly its former Premier, Mike Harris, in the government’s handling of a similar Indian occupation of a public park in Ipperwash, Ontario.

In that instance, in evicting the occupiers, a trigger-happy OPP officer shot and killed an unarmed Indian. The officer was convicted of a crime and duly sentenced.

But that wasn’t enough for the Liberals. They had to spend $50 million trying to prove that the government (the former Premier specifically) had interfered with police discretion and caused the harm. They failed. The commission exonerated the government from such charges.

Now, with the Caledonia native occupation, the chickens have come home to roost. And that roosting has been expensive. The latest estimate is that it has cost the taxpayers $65 million, not including the cost of the undisclosed settlement of the seven million dollar law suit brought by an Ontario couple against the government and the OPP because they were harassed for two years by the rampaging Indians without police protection.

Mr. Persichilli says:

There was no doubt that without a legal framework to say who was right and who was wrong, the tension in Caledonia would increase, with the real possibility that someone was going to be hurt.

Again, the OPP and its commissioner, Fantino, were asked to enforce the law in a context where the dispute was the law itself. The bottom line was simple: was the occupation legal or not?

Later he asks again:

Was it legal? I don't know, but was it legal to occupy public land? Is it legal to leave citizens without protection?

There is not a shadow of a doubt that the occupation of this land was illegal. It was not public land, like Ipperwash. It was land privately owned by a development company, which may have been subject to an as yet unsubstantiated aboriginal historical claim.

The problem, however, is not so much the fact that the Indians invaded the property and faced down the police in a show of force. Most people would have simply looked the other way and considered it an issue for the development company to sort out with the Indians and federal government.

It is what they did once they were in occupation, starting immediately with the beating of an employee of the development company who was simply trying to retrieve his blueprints and other documents from his on-site development office. He was hospitalized. Here is his picture.

And here are a number of pictures showing the acts carried out during the occupation: burning a railroad trestle, burning an electrical substation, blocking public highways with trash and burning tires, throwing a van from an overpass onto the highway, and tearing up the national flag. One thing to note in all of these pictures: the complete absence of any police presence.

Now here is a series of pictures from the other side of the disputed property – from the town side. A man is detained from waving a Canadian flag by no less than three police officers. A protest organizer is hauled away by three police officers. He was jailed and subsequently released without charge. Note the number of police vehicles present on the town side of the dispute when the town's people gathered to protest the occupation.

It is not that there are no laws to deal with the hooliganism, thuggery, arson and violence perpetrated by the Indians, Mr. Persichilli, it is simply that we lack a police force with the balls to enforce the laws we have.

And the sad thing is that this appeasement in the face of such aggression will only encourage the Indians to adopt such tactics in future land disputes.

Finally, ask yourself this question. If, instead of Mohawks, a band of Hells Angels motorcycle guys rode onto this property and carried on in the same fashion, what would the police response have been?

For readers who are unfamiliar with the Caledonia story, I refer you to this website.

French catch "English disease"

2010-01-10T10:46:00.004-05:00

It seems the French may have fallen victim to the “English disease.” No not that disease, not the one the Brits call the “French disease.”

I am writing about bad engineering design. In this case it is the TGV, the fast French train that plies its trade between the U.K. and France through the tunnel.

Just before Christmas the tunnel service was suspended when six trains failed and had to be towed back to France. It happened again yesterday. It seems that the cold weather has caused moisture build-up in the engine compartment and has shorted out the electrics.

This is bad design, because whoever put this together ought to have anticipated the impact of a hot engine on an influx of cold air and should have isolated the electrical components.

In the 1960s, my father, for reasons best known to him, became enthralled with English cars. Some folks today may not realize that the U.K. back then had a large auto industry that exported its products to the world. In fact, it was the largest car exporting nation at that time.

I think my dad took a liking to a nearby garage owner who also happened to have the local dealership for Austin and Vauxhall. Over a period of about 5 years our driveway had two of the larger Austin’s (which were not large at all by North American standards) and one Vauxhall. They were all purchased new.

Collectively, they spent almost as much time in the garage being repaired as they were being driven. They were terrible cars, completely unreliable. You could never count on going out in one of them and returning in the same vehicle.

We used to chalk it up to the fact that British automotive engineers had no idea about winter driving conditions in Canada when they designed them.

That theory ended in one spring when I took an Austin for a spin on a rain-soaked day. There was a nearby town that was located at the bottom of a river valley, with steep grades at either end of the highway that ran through the middle of the town.

I came down one hill, drove to the other side, and started to climb the hill out of town. Halfway up, the motor began to sputter and lose power.

I managed a U-turn and on the down slope the engine came up to full power. When I started up the other hill, the same thing happened, and I again pulled U-turn and used gravity to get the car up to speed. This time I roared through the town, greatly exceeding the speed limit, and tried to assault the hill. No luck, the motor died halfway up. I abandoned the effort and found alternative transportation.

Later we consulted with the dealer who said the problem was that the sparkplugs were all positioned in the front of the motor, just behind the radiator, and the rainwater had shorted them out. When we asked for a solution to the problem, he said the manufacturer provided a pull down blind that could be installed just behind the radiator. However, he cautioned, if you do that, your engine will overheat.

If the automotive engineers in one of the wettest countries in the Northern Hemisphere couldn’t design a car appropriate for their own climate, then it was time to go back to American cars.

And that is just what we did.

When bloggers boil over benches

2010-01-07T08:29:00.010-05:00

---------------------AQSA PARVEZ---------------------------

When bloggers get angry it can get very personal.

There are two American blog sites that are up in arms over a story about a granite bench in a “peace park” in the little burg of Pelham, Ontario.

Now before you go running to Mapquest or Google Maps, I will save you the trouble; this otherwise unremarkable town (population 16,000) is buried in the middle of the Niagara region, many miles away from the events that led to this dispute.

What Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch and Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs are ticked off about is that the Pelham Fire Chief, Scott McLeod, gave an interview to the Toronto Star and, forsaking Geller, took credit for initiating a memorial to Aqsa Parvez in the form of a granite park bench, with the following inscription:

"Remembering new Canadians lost to the quest of integrating cultures – In Loving Memory of Aqsa Parvez – Remembered and Free."

A little history.

In December of 2007, sixteen year-old Aqsa Parvez, a Mississauga grade 11 schoolgirl, was rushed to Sick Kids Hospital, in Toronto, suffering from neck compressions. She died in hospital.

There was a 911 call allegedly made by her father confessing to her murder. He was charged with second degree murder. The girl’s older brother was charged with obstructing police. Subsequently, both were re-charged with first degree murder when the police concluded that the killing was planned and deliberate. There has been an extensive preliminary hearing in which the evidence was banned from publication.

The criminal trial is to take place in January, 2011.

Yes, the wheels of justice do grind slowly in Canada.

The arrest created a sensation because it was alleged in the media she was murdered because she did not wear a hijab all the time. It has been branded as an honour killing.

Both Geller and Spencer write frequently on their blogs about honour killings, including this one.

Geller was appalled to learn that Aqsa was buried in a cemetery with only a numbered marker in the ground. She organized a fund which received $5,000 in donations to put up a stone somewhere as a memorial to Aqsa with this inscription:

In loving memory of Aqsa Parvez

April 22, 1991 – December 10, 2007
Beloved, remembered and free

According to Geller, McLeod is a frequent reader of her blog and had contacted her about this memorial before the events in Pelham unfolded.

What annoys the two bloggers is not only that McLeod wants the brownie points, but that he deliberately appears to have distanced himself from Geller. The money came from the municipality with the assistance of a local female councillor and a point was made in the Star story that none of Geller’s donation money was used.

I guess I would be pissed off too, if I were Geller.

But I am not Geller and I haven’t been personally involved in this effort, so, just as a third party observer, this is what occurs to me.

I would not attribute evil motives to McLeod. He’s just a small time local guy who has done something notable in the community, probably the most exciting thing to happen in Pelham since they paved the highway into the town. Geez, he got his name in the Toronto Star. Who in Pelham can claim that distinction? He wants to take the credit. So be it. That is human nature.

And because I don’t think that he is evil in intention, I think it is consistent with portraying himself to be the local hero who thought up the idea that he would distance himself from Geller’s Aqsa fund. I don’t think Geller should assume he is somehow saying her money is tainted because of her politics.

As to the depiction in the story of Geller’s blog as being anti-Muslim, that is standard form multi-cult Toronto Star coverage. That goes well beyond McLeod.

Leaving aside the matter of who gets to be the hero of the piece, I am not overly impressed with either of the two inscriptions.

This is what one Muslim spokeswoman had to say about the Pelham one:

Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, is happy that a town is remembering Parvez. "But I have some difficulty with what they are trying to say in the inscription. Maybe they are trying to raise questions but I'm not quite sure (the inscription) reflects her death."

I agree with that.

I also don’t think Geller’s inscription passes muster. It is okay for a normal headstone, although it is never going to be placed on her grave.

If you read Geller and Spencer closely you find they are upset that the honour killing aspect in the Star story appears to be absent and that the message is lost in politically correct mush.

They are right about that and that is why I am not enthusiastic about Geller’s version of a memorial because it appears to suffer from the same problem.

Here is what I would do if I were Geller and I had $5,000 to put up a memorial to Aqsa.

First, I would ensure that the memorial was put up somewhere in Mississauga where Aqsa lived and died. What is point of locating it in Guelph or Pelham? The community that her death was supposed to appease is in Mississauga. That is where the message has to be hammered home, amongst the very people who tacitly support honour killings.

Secondly, I would wait until the trial is concluded and verdicts are secured.

I see that Spencer makes no bones that Aqsa’s father murdered her. In Canada, you haven’t murdered somebody until you are tried and the court says you did.

I know, I know: if it swims like a duck, it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Still, there is the presumption of innocence and we have the same libel laws as the United Kingdom, so one should be careful. It is up to a jury to declare it is a duck.

Consider this. Perhaps it was not the father, it might have been the brother, and the father was trying to take the rap for him. Not that he is not guilty of complicity, but why name him if it might have been the brother?

There is also an issue involving the question of the Islamic dress that remains unresolved.

According to this Toronto Life background story, Aqsa’s close friends don’t put much stock in the “wouldn’t wear the hijab” angle. Aqsa apparently wore it on whim. She liked her religion and some days just felt like wearing it, and other days not. One very telling thing was that one of her close girlfriends is black. And Aqsa’s father did not like her choice of friends, warning her that black people would lead her down inappropriate paths in life.

So it might well be an honour killing, but possibly not for the reason the media has spread about. Or it might not be an honour killing at all – just a domestic fight that got out of control over a teenage girl’s choice of friends. We won’t know the answers to these questions until the trial.

Assuming that the outcome of the trial will establish the guilt of the father and/or brother and that the evidence supports the honour killing motive, then I would suggest that a plaque be mounted in a suitable location with the following inscription:

AQSA PARVEZ
(April 22, 1991 – December 10, 2007)

This plaque is dedicated to the memory of a young Canadian Muslim girl who was murdered by her closest male relatives, in accordance with the barbaric practice of honour killings, because she allegedly shamed her family by her desire live like a Canadian.

That seems to be closer to reality and what is needed.

Governments, when they are not doing it for you, they are doing it to you

2010-01-05T13:24:00.004-05:00

Having worked in government, I must say I am not a big fan. To me, governments at all levels leave a lot to be desired. They are necessary evils and should be treated as such. They should be compelled to do only what is absolutely essential for good government and not a thing more.

In the City of Toronto, the councillors met late at night for a semi-secret vote (the media had all departed the council chamber) to grant funds to one of their own who had libeled a rival candidate during the election and had been successfully sued by that candidate. The amount was some $65,000 with an added amount of nearly $30,000 to compensate for the taxes on the base settlement. The city’s own solicitor told the council this was illegal. Now a citizens’ group has formed to take all of the councilors who voted for this to court.

This year is an election year. Let us hope the normally butt-headed voters in that city decide it is time for some new blood at the council table and get rid of these “well past their due date” troughers.

In France, the French government is introducing a law that would criminalize domestic arguments between spouses or quasi-spouses, known as the “yelling at your wife” law. It was a former Prime Minister of Canada, who had sponsored new liberal sex laws and divorce legislation, in his former role as the Minister of Justice, who coined the phrase, “The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation.”

The proposed French law expands the role of the state to the living room, dining room, kitchen, bathrooms and hallways of a person’s home, and probably the driveway and garden, for that matter.

That brings us to Canada, where the current Conservative government is taking some heat from the columnists and readers of the Toronto Star for proroguing Parliament until the beginning of March. It was due to commence its session on January 25.

I say good on P.M. Stephen Harper. There will be no opportunity for more stupid legislation in the intervening months, and, when it does come back to order, all the bills will have to be re-introduced. In fact, I will bet there will be an election late this year and so those bills will also likely die on the order paper.

Imagine, a whole year in which the government can do absolutely nothing. Could anything be sweeter?

I think it was Belgium that went for an entire year with no legally elected government and nobody missed it.

Pissed off Pelosi punches up pedantic President

2009-12-31T14:34:00.006-05:00

Sources close to Congressional House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have confirmed a rumour that President Barack Obama recently received executive “emotive training” in Hawaii from one of America’s top professionals in the field, Edward Cunningham, of the First and Best Chance management communications consulting firm, headquartered in Houston, Texas. Cunningham was dispatched by the Democratic Party on an emergency basis to assist Obama to overcome his devotion to the “cool image” form of Presidential persona.

Pelosi, who is also vacationing in Hawaii, was reported to be incensed at Obama’s detachment from the terrifying incident on Christmas Day when a Muslim terrorist nearly blew up a Northwest Airlines airplane with nearly 300 hundred passengers on board. Obama left it to his Homeland Security head, Janet Napolitano, to walk point and handle the public relations, while he continued to golf and play tennis.

After public blowback to Napolitano’s assurances that “the system worked” and still no word from Obama, Pelosi blew up and reportedly said,

“Doesn’t that self-absorbed pedantic prick understand or care how many Democratic seats will be contested in 2010? Doesn’t he understand that the American voters want to know that he cares about these things?"

It was Pelosi who authorized dispatching Cunningham to Hawaii.

Cunningham specializes in coaching senior corporate management to appear concerned and empathetic during contract negotiations with their unions. His clientele is a who’s who of American blue chip corporations. He was recently most active in the auto makers’ contracts, being credited with gaining wage and benefit roll-backs that would unlikely be achieved without his Sincerity™ training package.

One senior negotiator with GM, who declined to be identified for this story, credited Cunningham with at least 50% of the gains by management that led to the company coming out of bankruptcy earlier than expected.

“Until I grasped the concept of always looking sincere, whether I mean it or not, I doubt I could have had the traction I had at the negotiating table. Cunningham even taught me how to ‘tear up” on cue when listening to a union patented sad story. It worked like a charm,” said the negotiator. “I think Obama will get a lot out of this training.”

Obama has recently been portrayed in the media as "sounding angry” about America’s security lapse.

Obama has his "classroom moment" without Michael Moore's twit comments

2009-12-30T09:04:00.007-05:00

It appears that U.S. President Barack Obama has had his epiphany and discovered at last what it means to hold this job.

It is not about letting “no crisis go to waste”, about transforming the United States into a mini-me European state, about propping up banks, or telling the car industry how to do its business, or even helping Big Pharma remain Big Pharma. The single most important job of the President is to keep America safe and Americans secure. Because, if you can’t do that, the rest doesn’t really matter very much.

I think that lesson has now sunk in.

Film maker Michael Moore made much mockery of a video of former President George W. Bush appearing stunned in a children’s classroom for about seven minutes after being told of the 9/11 attacks. He further made cracks about Bush always seeming to be on vacation.

Now his favourite President waits three days on his golfing vacation before commenting directly on the near catastrophe at Detroit airport and the complete catastrophe in the world-wide anti-terrorist net. Then Obama comes out sounding very much like Bush, talking about tracking down those responsible. And for the second day in a row he has now spoken publicly about fixing the security mess and actually sounding as if he were really angry about it – like it might matter to him.

I checked Michael Moore’s website this morning before writing this. He has a big open letter to the President telling him not to send more troops to Afghanistan and to fire his generals. He was some silly twitter comments about the Detroit incident, saying how the troop surge didn’t prevent the terrorist boarding the airplane. But he has nothing to say about Obama being on vacation and taking nearly 72 hours to show a public reaction to the terrorist threat.

Hey Michael, how about some even-handedness? Why don’t you comment on how Obama is handling this failure in American security the way you were so ready to do with GWB?

A Bronx Cheer for the big guy at the end of the aughts

2009-12-28T14:07:00.006-05:00

It is customary at the end of a year to reflect on the events of that year and what we might have learned from them, for better or for worse. The same sort of exercise applies to the end of a decade. Often media writes these reflections up as the most “newsworthy” stories, etc. Since media claims to be the gatekeeper of news, this is kind of a poor man’s Academy Award show, where industry insiders pat themselves on the back for their picks.

I am a blogger, so screw MSM. I’ll sort my way through the decade.

With respect to the past year, I would say that climate science gets the top billing.

First, we had the Copenhagen conference, two years in the planning, which was supposed to set the stage for an embryonic world government to deal with planetary resources. By any measure it completely failed. It was probably the last gasp of something Maurice Strong put in motion 30 years ago.

Many of the same sad bunch will meet in Mexico City next year, but it won’t hold a candle to the promise that was to be Copenhagen.

Second, we had the leaked or hacked e-mails from the climate science top dogs who admitted to themselves, if not to us, that the science is anything but settled. Leaving aside the career jealousies and the attempts to control the peer review process that were evident in these 2,000 pages of e-mails, they puzzled over the hiatus in warming for the past decade, had no explanation for it, admitted it did not fit the theory, and began to doubt their own analysis and the data behind it. They clearly demonstrated that they had really no idea why the world of the past warmed or cooled, having dismissed ice core samples as being imprecise and having trouble making tree ring data fit the theory as well.

I am told relentlessly by fans of AGW that the medieval warm period is irrelevant, and in any case, we don’t know enough about it, and that all that matters is the dramatic rise in the past century of CO2. This is unprecedented they tell me.

How do we know, I say, when we don’t anything reliable about the past? Logic fails here for reasons I get into later.

What also fails to knock these folks off their game is that the temperature and the CO2 have not been consistent. For periods in the past century, including the last decade, the temperature has not been inexorably rising as the AGW says it should since the CO2 has been unalterably rising.

I would say that many more people believed the AGW hypothesis than disbelieved it at the beginning of this decade and, at the end of the decade, these numbers have reversed, with more disbelieving it than believing it. This will have political consequences.

During this decade, I would say religion was the most important driver in world affairs. And by that I mean religion in its broadest sense, including the religion of global warming.

We started the decade believing a new era of reason, science and rationalism would prevail. Not more than a year passed and we saw religious zealots of Islamic persuasion carry out audacious suicide attacks on the cities of New York and Washington.

One of the fallouts from these attacks was the new stringent security rules that air travelers were subjected to before they could board airplanes. At the end of the decade, yet another in a long line of Islamic attempts at murder by aircraft in Detroit has led to even more onerous impositions on air travelers.

So, on behalf of all civilian aviation, let’s give Mohammed a big Bronx cheer.

One of the things that began to dawn on western societies during this decade was the impact of Islam, not just in Islamic countries, but in the heart of western civilization. We have not yet found a way to effectively deal with this foreign political-religio philosophy and I expect the next decade will see us increasingly absorbed by that issue.

One of the things that has become clearer near the end of the decade, however, is that, like the doubts that have begun to permeate over the certainty of climate science, the rose-coloured lenses that viewed Islam as “one of the world’s great religions” and a “religion of peace” have cracked and fallen away.

In Europe, the people are either voting with their feet, leaving for non-European western nations, or are organizing populist political parties that take aim at Islam as a menace. The political establishment in Europe is on shaky ground having spent its political capital during the decade appeasing and propping up Muslims while simultaneously suppressing nascent European nationalism. Its cupboard is nearly bare and I would expect to see the old guard swept away in future elections by those who do not wish to see the Islamification of Europe. After all, there are still many more Europeans who vote than Islamists and they know they will have to act politically soon while they still can.

The outcome will not be pretty.

Australia has shown some muscle in dealing with the issue, but Canada appears to be still very much asleep at the switch.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Americans have elected an anachronism to the highest office. Just as the rest of the world begins to march down a different path opposing Islam, President Obama runs around the planet praising the religion to the skies, misrepresenting it in the process, and promising to defend the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab, ignoring the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that his efforts are viewed by the Islamic world as weakness, and by even some of the jellyfish European politicians as foolish, and by the American public as misguided.

The day after the Fort Hood massacre, Obama cautioned the public not to jump to conclusions. Three days after the attempt to blow up the airplane in Detroit he has not said anything to the American public. Air travel in the United States is in complete turmoil, but not a word directly from the President. Perhaps if the news stories had been framed, not as another Muslim terrorist at it again, but as white people arresting a black man on board an airplane, he would be inclined to be more loquacious.

Unless he shifts ground within the next year, he will probably suffer the worst fate a President can endure; he will lose his moral authority to govern.

Police thinking. Hypocritical newspapers.

2009-12-23T07:56:00.007-05:00

In Ontario, a rash of traffic accidents and fatalities from mostly young drivers racing each other on the highway resulted in the provincial nanny state recently enacting a draconian “stunt driving” law that has some serious penalties attached to it: $10,000 fine, jail time, loss of driver’s license, etc., if you are caught going 50 kilometers an hour over the posted speed limit.

While it has been used to prosecute the people the law was intended to affect, in typical police fashion, foolish charges have been laid against those who are speeding for other reasons; such as, trying to pass a big transport truck on the highway to get to a safe lane. After a couple of these showed up in court, the judges ruled the law unconstitutional and those rulings await the appeal of a higher court.

Meanwhile an auto mechanic was charge with speeding on the express highway on his motorcycle. He was going 243 kph in 100 kph zone on a multi-lane expressway. There was no evidence of racing and the prosecutor chose not to proceed with the stunt driving charge. The man was convicted and fined about $1,400.

Accrding to a story in today's Toronto Sun, Mr. Julian Fantino, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner, a strong supporter of Ontario's stunt driving law, said in an e-mail: "I am disappointed that the sentence did not also include a psychiatric assessment before the individual is allowed the privilege of driving in Ontario."

If you are ever in doubt about the wisdom of letting the police mind set the public agenda, that statement should do it for you.

Anybody who has ever ridden a motorcycle knows that they cry out to be let loose on a good open road. There is no thrill to compare to cranking one of these things up to its high end to see how it can fly. That may be careless, or even reckless, behaviour, but it is certainly not abnormal.

What is abnormal is having a top police official who thinks that anybody who wants to experience the thrill of riding a motorcycle at a speed beyond the humdrum one permitted by law needs a psychiatric evaluation.

And Another Thing

There are four daily newspapers in the Toronto area market that duke it out for circulation honours and advertising revenue. The one in that regional market with the largest circulation is the Toronto Star.

In my mind, it is unique in another way. I find its rivals generally consistent in political bias. The Star, however, has no shame.

In a recent op-piece, penned by one of their editorial editors, Martin Regg Cohn, the writer pretends to be former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, chastising the current PM, Stephen Harper, for how he is handling his international profile, particularly his relations with the American President, and comparing Harper’s allegedly dismal performance with Mulroney’s stellar one.

I am old enough to recall how the Star treated Mulroney and his government for the eight years when he was in power. I cannot recall them ever praising him for anything. This attitude was not just in the editorials, it infected every single columnist in the newspaper. Even the humour guy, the late Gary Lautens, who I thought was a genteel person who would never say the word “shit” if his mouth were full of it, wrote a serious, nasty rant against Mulroney to my complete surprise.

I recall that the government did some polling during the public discussion of the free trade agreement with the United States, then in the offing. The pollsters determined that 47% of the country’s opposition to the Mulroney-sponsored deal came from the Toronto Star.

The Star vilified Mulroney for having a close relationship with Ronald Reagan. Now they are pretending that was a good thing.

What a nest of hypocrites!

Lockerbie bombing revisted

2009-12-20T09:48:00.003-05:00

In August of this year an international flap arose over the release on alleged compassionate grounds of convicted Lockerbie aircraft bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to his home country of Libya. Supposedly he was due to die within three months from cancer.

As of this past Wednesday he was still alive.

At the time, I did not buy into the compassion part of the story. There was some scuttlebutt that it was done because of some commercial deal in the offing between the U.K. and Libya, but I thought the truth lay more in that fact that al-Megrahi was appealing his conviction, that the case against him at trial was shaky, that he might well have succeeded on the appeal and it would embarrass the government.

When he arrived in Tripoli he was greeted as a conquering hero.

During his trial the defense portrayed him as a lowly airline employee.

New information has now been revealed that was not available at his trial.

Al-Megrahi was sitting on a Swiss bank account containing nearly three million U.S. dollars in today’s currency. Furthermore, he was involved in the purchase of development of chemical weapons for Libya and he attempted to purchase 1,000 letter bombs from Greek arms dealers, while he employed as a Libyan intelligence officer.

So far, the Scottish government has declined to make his medical records available for public scrutiny.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that he was the Lockerbie bomber, but it does suggest he was anything but a lowly airline worker, and in terms of international terror activities, certainly not an innocent man.

Margolis should sit on a minaret and rotate

2009-12-15T21:36:00.006-05:00

Muslim countries have been threatening to take economic action against Switzerland for the recent plebiscite that resulted in a ban on the construction of future minarets. The hypocrisy of these countries that do not permit the construction of churches or synagogues, or the open and free worship of religions other than Islam, is monumental.

The Swiss vote did not result in the destruction of existing minarets or in any restriction on the building of mosques or the free and open worship of Islam in Switzerland.

It would be nice if leftist writers in the free world would write something about the lack of religious freedoms in the Islamic world, but they cannot break out of their self-imposed ideology of guilt and blame against the West for its supposed transgressions.

A case in point is a recent column by Eric Margolis, in the Winnipeg Sun, who says he has a “deep love” of Switzerland where he spent some time as a youth, but goes on to say he has no use for the Swiss who are “xenophobic” and “racist”. They are also “fiercely nationalistic”, as if that were a fault for which they should be embarrassed.

It is interesting to compare this alleged xenophobic, racist and very nationalistic European country with Canada, which is not particularly nationalistic, and is not generally considered xenophobic or racist. About 19.8% of our population is made up of immigrants compared to 25% of the Swiss population. Odd that a nationalist, racist and xenophobic country would have such a high percentage. Canada takes in nearly 300,000 new immigrants a year, yet we still lag Switzerland.

Margolis claims that the persecution of the Muslims is exactly like that of the Jews under the Nazis.

What utter nonsense.

The closer parallel would be how Muslim countries treat Jews and Christians and Infidels.

The 20th century accusation against Jews being a threat to Europe was entirely fictional and the case against them being a “race” of people who were sub-human, rather than simply adherents of a religion, was equally concocted out of thin air. The Jews made the effort to integrate with the European society, and as Naill Ferguson has pointed out, there was a great deal of inter-religious marriage. Furthermore, the authorities, the elites and the establishment in Europe all collaborated in this fiction to suppress and eventually to nearly destroy European Jewry.

In contrast, European elites treat Muslims with kid gloves. Muslims are reluctant to integrate, they do not intermarry and prefer spouses from their old countries to Muslims that have been Europeanized, and yet they are not treated as if they are sub-human the way the Jews were. In Europe, as in Canada and the United States, the majority of reported hate crimes still continue to be directed against Jews, not Muslims.

It is the politically dispossessed European nationalists who are threatened by these European political elites who decry nationalism in the name of multiculturalism.

Margolis says he admires the Swiss plebiscite system, but prays that the organs of the state in the hands of the right-headed people will overturn the will of the electorate. It doesn’t occur to Margolis that if that is how the people feel about this subject perhaps the elites should be doing something to address the concerns of the general public rather than branding them all as unthinking racists.

This is typical leftist-elitist thinking – it is fine to have an appearance of democracy as long as the rabble don’t take it too seriously and prevent their betters doing the necessary things that are for their own best interests which the proletariart are incapable of determining for themselves. It is a strange sentiment coming from a guy who claims he is a Republican conservative.

It may well be that the Muslims in Switzerland are all pussycats, as Margolis claims they are, but the Swiss have television sets, the Internet, and newspapers, just as the rest of us do, and they can read the writing on the wall of what will eventually happen to European culture in an Islamic-dominated Europe.

Nonie Darwish, the expatriate Egyptian, makes the point that the rich culture of ancient Egypt was left to be buried in the sands of the desert by the Muslims for whom history starts with Mohammed. It was the European invaders from France and England who took an interest in Egypt and saved and resurrected its glorious past.

The Swiss have started down the road of saving their culture, despite their elites, not with their assistance. This is a cultural battle, not a racist one.

The irrelevance of Copenhagen and the relevance of the burka

2009-12-12T12:26:00.007-05:00

If you ever wondered whether the world-wide meeting in Copenhagen this week has any relevance to the real world, this news story from Politico.com should sort that out for you pretty quickly.

COPENHAGEN –Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe plan to address negotiators at international climate talks in Copenhagen next week.

The three leaders are listed in a line-up of more than 180 government officials published in a United Nations schedule of speakers. Each head of state will have up to three minutes to address roughly 700 delegates, reporter, observers and civil society groups.

The assistant president of Sudan, Nafie Ali Nafie kicks off the speeches at noon on Wednesday.

Nafie chairs the G-77 group, a block of developing nations pushing hard for more money and stricter emissions cuts from rich countries.

Mostapha Zaher, director-general of Afghanistan's Environmental Protection Agency, is listed as the final speaker. He’ll take the podium slightly before 2 a.m. next Friday.

Other leaders addressing the conference include everyone from Saad Hariri, the prime minister of Lebanon, to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Roughly 110 world leaders plan to attend the talks, an unprecedented number for a climate conference. Typically, only a handful of top leaders attend the negotiations. President Barack Obama is expected at the meeting on Friday.

Note that the speakers are limited to 3 minutes each. The Iranian leader was limited to 15 minutes at the United Nations and went on and on and on for 40 minutes without interference from the Chair. With Mugabe and Chavez scheduled as well, look for more CO2 to be spewed into the atmosphere than is produced in this country in one year. I would like to see any of these three limit themselves to 3 minutes.

You may be wondering why I led off with the picture. It is a woman in the U.S. midwest who is dressed to deal with the deep freeze that is currently setting new temperature lows in North America as a result of global warming. I included the picture because I have been opposed to the Burka, but I think I may have discovered a practical use for this garment in combatting the intense cold caused by global warming.

The Protocols of Obama

2009-12-10T08:01:00.007-05:00

Obama arrives in Norway for his Peace Prize

There is a story in the Guardian about President Obama pissing off the Norwegians because he won't participate, as Peace Prize winners usually do, in a series of planned public events. The most serious accusation is that he will not have lunch with the King of Norway.

Now, if ever there was evidence that Obama doesn't like Europeans this has to be it. A man who loves to bow to royalty passing up an opportunity to get his picture taken doing it again, what's with that?

Oh yes, the King is a white man.

UPDATE

Apparently, even though he did not have lunch with the Norwegian King, Obama met him and this is how he greeted him. Compare with the Saudi and Japanese bows below. I could be wrong -- it could have nothing to do with Obama's distate for the history of the white race, it could be because Arabia and Japan own so much of America, and Norway was foolish enough to buy American toxic derivatives.

Norway

Arabia

Japan

Quote of the day

2009-12-07T09:19:00.008-05:00

This one comes to us from Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He once flew from New York to Delhi, over a weekend, to take in a cricket match.

He defended climate research in the face of a controversy over e-mails pilfered from a British university, which global warming skeptics say show scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence that doesn't fit their theories.

"The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC," he told the conference.

Pachauri seems unconcerned that the scientists on whom his panel relies have lost the original data, so fudged the data they have that it is incomprehenisble, and that they conspired to defeat freedom of information laws and corrupted the peer review process to hide their incompetence. The fact that these same folks beat themselves up because they could not explain the last decade of static or cooling temperatures with the AGW theory to which they cling (like religion and guns), seems not worth considering to our globe-trotting Chairman.

The next time somebody tells you what we need is a world government, keep this quote in mind.

Montreal massacre redux

2009-12-06T23:56:00.002-05:00

Since this is the 20th anniversary of an iconic mass murder in Canada, it seems obligatory for bloggers and media types to say something about it.

On December 6, 1989 a young man, called Marc Lepine, entered a post secondary institution in Montreal, separated an engineering class into males and females, sent the males out of the room and proceeded to gun down the women. He then wandered through the school shooting other people at random, but mainly targeting women. Eventually, after killing 14 women and wounding 14 others, including four men, he killed himself. He left a suicide note indicating that he wanted to kill feminists.

Over the years, a lot of explanations have been given for his behaviour, all of it centering on a psychological explanations.

His actions spurred feminists to use the anniversary of the event as a kind of a club to draw attention to violence against women. It also led to tightening of gun ownership laws.

One of the things almost never mentioned, however, is the role religion might have played in this. This is interesting because it is common to find that feminists ignore the plight of their fellow women who suffer injustice at the hands of religion, especially Islam.

Marc Lepine was a name that he adopted when he was 14 years of age. Up to that point, he had been known as Gamil Gharbi. His mother was French Canadian, a professional nurse. His father was an Algerian immigrant, a Muslim Arab. By all accounts, the father was not a “regular go to the mosque” Muslim, but he certainly grew up in a Muslim household and culture in Algeria. He despised women and treated his wife and children abysmally, making sure that the children also were deprived of a close relationship with the mother.

He eventually abandoned the family and the mother went back to work as a nurse to support the family. That is when Gamil changed his name to Marc and adopted his mother’s maiden name as his last name.

Twenty years ago it is not surprising to find that nobody would have considered the religious influence in this matter. Yet, even today, accounts of the events fail to offer any religious angle.

This is what Nonie Darwish has to say in her latest book, Cruel and Usual Punishment about the impact of Sharia law on the role of Muslim males.

According to the rules a man is not to take his wife into matters of any importance, he must not reveal his secrets, he is not to tell her the amount of his property, in case she exercises her built in bad judgment to influence him and cause him ruin. He is also not to give her an excess of affection lest she gain power over him. Simply put, a husband is not to trust his wife nor ever show her much love.

A man’s role in the home has been narrowed down to that of the feared disciplinarian and controller. According to codified Islamic Law: The Prophet said, “Hang up the whip where the members of the household can see it.”

It may well be that Lepine’s father didn’t attend the mosque, but his behaviour in the home would suggest that he well understood the law of Islam.

To what extent did his “role model” activities shape Lepine’s attitude to women?

Perhaps feminists would care to dwell on that.

Two steeples good, four minarets bad

2009-12-02T21:39:00.009-05:00

I have been pondering the meaning of the Swiss vote on banning further construction of minarets, a proposition which passed by 57.5% of those who voted. The website, Gates of Vienna, has an excellent summary of official reaction to it, both in Europe and in Muslim countries.

One thing that has struck me observing the European scene for the past couple of years is how out of touch the ruling elites, political and media, are with the sympathies of the European people they are supposed to represent or understand. The rising election fortunes of political parties whose mandate is to stop further Islamization of Europe in several EU countries is one sign. Now this direct and unfiltered vote from what is normally considered Europe's best example of a peaceable state puts another nail in the coffin of disconnect.

Each time something that might upset Muslims happens the elites fall all over themselves rushing to ensure Muslims that they are still valued. This is followed sometimes by the condemnation of "the people" for being xenophobic.

Given the chance to express themselves by a direct vote like this or by a representative vote for an extremist party the proletariat is telling the elites that they do not wish to see their European heritage and culture replaced by an Asian one. Moreover, the more the elites push multiculuralism on the people as a policy which allows the Asian culture to grow, the more the Europeans push back. There is evidence that many pockets of Islam in Europe do not desire to integrate and accept European norms. Likewise, there are many Europeans who do not wish them to integrate. The multicultural experimentation of the European elites is running into serious trouble.

Seventy years ago the Europeans turned their backs on another religio-culture, the Jews. Nobody had done more to try to integrate themselves into European culture and society, and to make themselves visibly indistinguishable from the majority, than the Jews. In no sense did they represent a competing culture and religion. Yet, they were rejected by Europeans when the political atmosphere became charged and extremist and European identity was in play.

Here you have a competing religion and culture that, to a large extent, does not waste its time trying to become European in the sense of embracing European values, customs or clothing.

The elites need to do more to ensure the proles that they have an answer to the perceived threat from the morlocks, and worry less about assuring the morlocks that the proles are under control.

When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets

2009-12-01T08:53:00.007-05:00

I saw an interview on television last night with George Monbiot. He is a columnist in the British newspaper, The Guardian, and the author of a climate change book, Heat: How to stop the planet burning. The title pretty much tells you which side of the climate debate he is on, although he would object to that statement, since he firmly believes there is no real debate, as all the so-called deniers are just poseurs arguing bad science or non science.

I read through some of his archived columns and the Wikipedia description of him this morning and he has quite the curriculum vitae. He seems to me to be an anti-establishment activist. Monbiot is an advocate of the “consume less” society. Naturally, supporting the conventional wisdom on climate change fits that political agenda to a tee.

I was interested to see him because the news of the leaked e-mails from the British Climate Research Unit shook him up. He called for the head of that institute, Phil Jones, to step down.

But he seems to have recovered his cool, if last night’s interview was an indication. He was smooth, poised, polished and definitely in command. He was here to accomplish two things: to participate in a climate change debate and to beat up on Canada for foot -dragging on climate change and interfering with the rest of the world that is rushing to get on with the program at Copenhagen.

Of course, he was asked about the leaked e-mails and he was in full defense mode, characterizing it as maybe evidence of some bad behaviour by 3 or 4 people, but in no way derailing the accepted science of climate change. According to him there are “hundreds” of “lines” of evidence in the scientific community, from across many disciplines, which support the IPCC view of the world’s coming climate.

I found that statement interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, the usual accusation against the climate deniers is that they are not “climatologists”, even if they have other scientific credentials. This ignores the fact that there are climatologists who dispute the AGW theory, some of whom used to be “go to” people for the IPCC, who have since dissociated themselves from it. Leaving that point aside, here we have a pro-IPCC supporter flogging the fact that non climatologists support AGW as proof of the theory.

Hmmm.

A little hypocrisy at play there.

Secondly, it is more than 3 or 4 scientists at the heart of this initial scandal. As well, similar accusations have cropped up in Australia and New Zealand regarding the accuracy of the temperature records around the globe.

What Monbiot didn’t say is as important as what he did say. These so-called “3 or 4” that he went to lengths to dismiss as irrelevant are not your backroom, white-coated lab geeks, with plastic pocket protectors and Scotch Tape holding their outsized eyeglasses together. These scientists are the rock stars of the IPCC and the face of the public shilling for AGW. It would be like collusion amongst Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull, or any other high scoring hockey players who might have played at the same time, to limit their goal output to influence the outcome of the games their teams play.

Monbiot failed to address the most distressing point of all (which the interviewer should have asked him). The CRU lost all the original temperature data records, so nobody can be sure what the base measurements were. It is also clear from the e-mails that the data base they do have, which was manipulated and massaged from the original data, is seriously corrupted to the point that the complier gave up in frustration trying to make sense of it.

Now you can say what you like, as Monbiot did, that biology, chemistry, physics, etc., all support the AGW theory, but in the end, it is the temperature that matters. If you can’t rely on a verifiable base of accurate temperature, how can you predict how that has changed? You have built a theory on sand, not concrete.

Monbiot dismissed the idea of a world-wide conspiracy to fabricate global warming, indicating that not only would thousands of competitive scientists have to stop being competitive to make it happen, but also politicians and media.

Yes, but only if you think of conspiracy as a planning exercise, like a bunch of crooks getting together to plan a break into a bank vault after hours.

There is another sense of conspiracy in the form of the Zeitgeist (spirit of the time). It is not planned, it is simply embraced. It is a mass movement, not unlike a religious movement. In one of his columns on his blog, Monbiot dismisses climate deniers as belonging to a religious movement.

But the same could be said for AGW supporters.

Climate “science” is based on computer algorithms, which depend for their reliability on a good base of information (which we have just discovered through these e-mails that we do not have) and the ability to compute huge swaths of measureable data accurately. The climate models all fail in one fashion or another to take account of all the chaotic nature of the relevant climate inputs. In short, their reliability as accurate predictors is suspect.

In the normal course, one would have to say this is a stupid basis on which to reorganize our global societies.

So what accounts for Copenhagen, if it is not reason?

The answer is simply that it is a mass movement, not really any different from the South Sea Bubble or the Tulip Bubble or any of the other historical parallels where multitudes of people bought into the theory of the rising tide and jumped on board before the ship sailed and stranded them on shore. People want to believe that they can change the planet to something better. It is utopia in all its glory at play.

Here is a paragraph from Eric Hoffer’s excellent little book on mass movements, The True Believer:

For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and the potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking.

George Monbiot’s personal history reveals a person who is a malcontent and wants to change the world. His pathology is shared by millions in the developed world who feel guilty about the consumerism and waste they have embraced, the unsustainable globe. The AGW theory is just the wedge they need to bring about the utopian world of which they dream.

And here is what Hoffer had to say about that:

When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them.

Nothing to see here, move along

2009-11-29T08:13:00.003-05:00

Since we live in a busy world and there is only so much time a person can devote to the “news of the day”, it behooves us to ration our time carefully. Many people, in my opinion, glance at headlines and the first paragraph in a newspaper, form their opinions from that, and move on. Similarly, many people still get their impressions of the world from television news, a highly manipulative medium, which assaults us, simultaneously, with pictures (some of which are merely archived video), speech and headlines crawling across the bottom of the screen. I do not understand why anybody would subject themselves to this barrage – it produces shell shock in me. At the end of a broadcast I am never certain what I have learned or how I feel about it.

My preference is to search for news sources and opinion makers I generally trust on-line on the Internet. They could be found in on-line newspapers or blogs or occasionally broadcast outlets. You can take as much time as you need or is available to you. You can drill down to get the depth of material needed to understand a story and you can quickly link to other sites to give more background or different perspectives. You can bookmark them for easy access and you can save their output for future reference.

The difference between lazy reporting and thoughtful journalism shows up in today’s Toronto Sun.

Both items refer to the current scandal that has been dubbed "Climategate".

In a news story, a reporter tries to tell us that the leaked e-mails from the CRU are essentially irrelevant in the matter of climate debate. He quotes one global warming skeptic, a climatologist, with the Friends of Science organization, who thinks they are important because they show that the data on which the whole edifice of global warming is based may be false or distorted, and then immediately dismisses that person’s opinion with this sentence:

But most mainstream media and serious science groups have dismissed this interpretation of the e-mails as mischief.

Full points for identifying the MSM as a protector of the conventional wisdom, but “serious science groups”, who would they be? This reporter seems to think they include the Sierra Club and the Pembina Institute, because he cites quotations from their spokespeople. These are not scientific organizations, they are environmental advocacy groups.

What are we getting from this reporter? Is he displaying his bias by putting down the skeptics in favour of the pro global warming crowd? Or is he just ignorant?

One clue that he might not know what he is writing about is this sentence:

The e-mails, between top climate change scientists, appear to reveal top scientists were suppressing information that contradicted the widely held theory, backed up by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, that climate change is man-made.

Wrong, Mr. Reporter. It is the work of these climate scientists that back up IPCC report, not the other way around.

This is why it is dangerous to rely solely on headlines and reporters for reliable information.

Much better, in the same newspaper, to go to a regular columnist like Lorrie Goldstein who has immersed himself in the climate change file for the better part of the past year and has written numerous columns on the subject. He thinks this e-mail disclosure is far from being merely mischievous.

He has examined a set of exchanges that I have not seen covered in other media that shows the entire data base of weather information used by CRU was corrupted beyond repair. That is no small thing.

Dr. Curry's honest assessment

2009-11-27T10:53:00.004-05:00

I picked the following up from a posting on Stephen McIntyre's award winning blog, Climate Audit. It is written by a climate scientist, Judy Curry. Although it suffers from unqualified conventional wisdom that all AGW skeptics are diresputable or dishonourable people, it is still a thoughtful piece. Apparently, publishing it on McIntyre's site is not without some political consequences for Dr. Curry.

In fact, McIntyre invited the beseiged climate folks to post responses to the climategate scandal on his blog and was refused. He has reproduced the correspondence on his site. It fits right in with Curry's criticisms of the climate science cultish mentality.

Curry writes:

Having been riveted for the last few days by posts in the blogosphere on the HADCRU hack and the increasing attention being given to this by the mainstream media, I would like to provide an “external but insider” assessment and perspective. My perspective is as a climate researcher that is not involved directly in any of the controversies and issues in the purloined HADCRU emails, but as one that is familiar with this research, the surrounding controversies, and many of the individuals who sent these emails. While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails. However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any actual misfeasance that impacts the climate data records, the damage to the public credibility of climate research is likely to be significant. In my opinion, there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and “tribalism” in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.

1. Transparency. Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why. This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased. The HADCRU surface climate dataset and the paleoclimate dataset that has gone into the various “hockeystick” analyses stand out as lacking such transparency. Much of the paleoclimate data and metadata has become available only because of continued public pressure from Steve McIntyre. Datasets that were processed and developed decades ago and that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record often contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved (this appears to be the case with HADCRUT). The HADCRU surface climate dataset needs public documentation that details the time period and location of individual station measurements used in the data set, statistical adjustments to the data, how the data were analyzed to produce the climatology, and what measurements were omitted and why. If these data and metadata are unavailable, I would argue that the data set needs to be reprocessed (presumably the original raw data is available from the original sources). Climate data sets should be regularly reprocessed as new data becomes available and analysis methods improve. There are a number of aspects of the surface climate record that need to be understood better. For example, the surface temperature bump ca. 1940 needs to be sorted out, and I am personally lacking confidence in how this period is being treated in the HADCRUT analysis. In summary, given the growing policy relevance of climate data, increasingly higher standards must be applied to the transparency and availability of climate data and metadata. These standards should be clarified, applied and enforced by the relevant national funding agencies and professional societies that publish scientific journals.

2. Climate tribalism. Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception). I became adopted into a “tribe” during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under, and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests. I even started spending time at climateaudit, and my public congratulations to Steve McIntyre when climateaudit won the “best science blog award” was greeted with a rather unpleasant email from one of the tribal members. While the “hurricane wars” fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues, the “hockey wars” have continued apparently unabated. With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the “denialists” were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words). Hence it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most, and it seems difficult to spin many of the emails related to FOIA, peer review, and the assessment process. I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to, and I encourage Gavin Schmidt et al. to continue explaining the individual emails and the broader issues of concern.

In summary, the problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers and the more technical blogs (e.g. Climateaudit, Lucia, etc). Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher or blogger is not an ethical strategy and one that will backfire in the long run. I have some sympathy for Phil Jones’ concern of not wanting to lose control of his personal research agenda by having to take the time to respond to all the queries and requests regarding his dataset, but the receipt of large amounts of public funding pretty much obligates CRU to respond to these requests. The number of such requests would be drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly accessible, and if requests from Steve McIntyre were honored (I assume that many spurious requests have been made to support Steve McIntyre’s request, and these would all disappear).

The HADCRU hack has substantially increased the relevance of Climateaudit, WUWT, etc. The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ☺. Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.

But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

Who are the deniers now?

2009-11-26T14:05:00.009-05:00

PROFESSOR ROSS McKITRICK

UPDATE: Here are a couple of the more interesting takes on this scandal, one from the Wall Street Journal which agrees with my view that the most serious charge to be laid against Jones and Mann, et al. is the manipulation of the peer review process to deny an opportunity for contrary research to be published, and one from a statistician in the National Post who plows the same soil previously tilled by McKitrick and thinks that the only international agreement that is required from Cophenhagen is an agreement that compels scientists to reveal their data for review by others.

The reverberations from the disclosure of e-mails obtained by a hacker and published on the Internet of the doings of the top AGW climate scientists still continue to reverberate around the globe.

The allegation that they cooked the global warming data to fit the AGW theory is not new and doesn’t require confirmation from these e-mails. It was first exposed about six years ago in the book: Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming by Ross McKitrick and Christopher Essex. That exposé was followed up by official investigations and other research that confirmed the conclusions of McKitrick and Essex.

The real devastation to the catastrophic climate change side comes in under the rubric of “integrity”.

I once made a statement to a friend who is a robust advocate for drastic measures to combat climate change and a committed believer in human caused global warming that environmentalists (i.e., people like him) can do harm. He was astonished that anyone would think that a “right-minded, altruistic” environmentalist could cause harm.

Right now, over a 100 countries are meeting in Denmark to plot a course that will ultimately result in shocks to the economies of many developed countries. This is all based on a 15-year successful campaign by global warm mongers to scare the snot out of politicians and to mobilize public opinion to further cause them angst.

Other scientists and researchers have been casting doubt on the entire premise on which this is based; i.e. that humans are largely responsible for climate change. Those dissenters have been vilified as dishonest because they are allegedly being paid off by energy industries who want to derail public policy based on global warming, and they are characterized as being irrelevant for the sin of being retired, and, in the final insult, they are dismissed as unimportant because they have not contributed research papers to respected scientific journals to be “peer reviewed”. In short, unlike the pro global warming crowd, the others lack integrity.

I am always suspicious of people whose first, and seemingly only, line of defence is ad hominem attacks on their critics.

There is a special label the AGW crowd has attached to the dissenting group, which, in normal science parlance (i.e. science unpolluted by politics) would be called skeptics. They are called deniers in the hope that the opprobrium that attaches to Holocaust deniers will trickle down and discredit these people. Consistent with that below the belt tactic are statements made by a number of AGWers that such deniers should receive criminal consequences and jail terms.

Now we find that the AGW group conspired to try to prevent research that did not conform to their published views from being “peer reviewed” in scientific journals.

They have become the deniers and perhaps they should be the ones looking at criminal consequences. Their integrity is shot, even if the science of climate change muddles on.

'Nuff said

2009-11-23T01:19:00.001-05:00

New acronym: PWW (Policing When White)

2009-11-20T11:34:00.003-05:00

I love new acronyms, like LOL (laughing out loud) and FYI (for your information).

As a result of series of stories a few years ago in one of Toronto’s major newspapers, the Toronto police were caught in racial profiling. The acronym that was popularized by that scandal was BWD (black while driving).

As a result of two recent decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal – no, really, it is actually called that – we can add a new one: PWW (policing when white).

In the summer, the tribunal adjudicated the complaint of a black man who was stopped by a police officer while he was delivering mail in high class neighbourhood. We have community policing here, and the white officer in question did not recognize the man who was wearing a postal service jacket and who was substituting for the regular postie who was off sick. He noticed the man return to a house he had already visited, so he asked him for some identification, which was produced, without incident, and the postie was thanked by the policeman for his co-operation and everybody went about their own business.

It would appear that the postal worker went back to the shop and told his fellow workers about the incident. They proceeded to tease him about it to the point that he decided to complain to the human rights police about racial discrimination, because he was made to feel bad about being black (not by the police, mind you, but by his fellow workers). The tribunal found there was no racial discrimination involved on the part of the policeman, but that he had “racially profiled” the postie, and an award of $10,000 was given to the black man.

In a similar award, $5,000 was given to a black woman who was ticketed by a white police officer for a number of offences related to her operation of a motor vehicle. In the wee small hours of the morning the officer observed her driving erratically and confronted her. She was uncooperative and matters escalated, as they tend to do when people do not cooperate with the police when they are simply doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Apparently, she had not viewed Chris Rock’s sensitivity training video.

Again, the tribunal could find no evidence of racial discrimination on the part of the officer, but fined the police anyway, claiming there was racial profiling involved.

Would these outcomes have applied if a black police officer was involved? Can black policemen be accused of “racially profiling”?

Stand by.

Truth melts like April snow

2009-11-19T00:19:00.004-05:00

TYPICAL 9/11 TRUTHER

A year ago I was having heated arguments with 9/11 Truthers, the folks who believe the conspiracy theory that the attacks on that day were not carried out by Islamic extremists, but by operatives of the Bush administration.

Now that Bush is no longer in power these sorts of accusations have melted away like April snow.

The current President has spent a good portion of his political capital making nice to the Muslims. What a political feather in his cap it would be if he could tell the Muslims how George Bush’s government was really responsible for 9/11 and how the Muslims were unfairly maligned.

It is easy for him to do this. He has made many mentions of the mess he has been left to clear up from the Bush years. He has all the agencies that Bush used to control now reporting to him. He could get any information he needs to back up the “Bush did it” theory on 9/11 and add it to his “to do” list.

Instead, he chose in his Cairo speech to tell the conspiracy people to take a hike.

What is with that?

Oh, after he looked into it he found there was no conspiracy. It actually was carried out by Muslims performing religiously mandated jihad. Who knew?

I sort of miss those arguments though. They were great fun.

NATO dhimmis -- time to go home

2009-11-18T13:04:00.003-05:00

The traditional relationship between Muslims, when they controlled a territory, and the non-Muslims, was that the latter could continue to live and go about their business provided they openly acknowledged their dhimmi status (second class citizenship) and they paid protection money to the Muslims for the privilege of being permitted to stay alive.

If you were any doubt about the waste of time that has become the war in Afghanistan it has to be the news that has surfaced that money is being paid to the Taliban not to kill NATO troops. Canada has denied it does this, as do the French and the Italians. But the British are doing it and it appears the Americans may be doing it also. Here and here and here and here.

Paying Muslims so they won’t kill you. How Islamic can it get?

Time to get out.

The value, or otherwise, of trying Islamist murderers in Western courtrooms

2009-11-17T10:30:00.007-05:00

In today's Toronto Sun, legendary journalist, Peter Worthington, who is about 80 years old and who usually pulls no punches, writes about the value of having a trial for Major Hasan. Unfortunately, like so many mainstream media types who really don't know anything about Islam, he purveys the concept that Major Hasan's actions were a "perversion" of his religion.

This is the equivalent of writing a story about Major Hasan, if he were a Christian and had been caught distributing blankets and food packages to the homeless, claiming that this was of perversion the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Why do they invent this stuff? if you know something about the religion you would not say this. If you don't know about the religion then you should just shut up and not mislead the public.

There are something like 123 suras in the Koran that talk about fighting and killing non-Muslims in the name of Allah. Major Hasan believed these commandments from God. How is that a perversion? Here is a discussion of those suras.

Speaking of trials, Pat Buchanan asks some strong and searching questions about the value of a trial in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Dr. Phil, the Islamists' answer to Lenin's "useful idiot"

2009-11-16T11:53:00.008-05:00

If you want to know why we are losing the struggle with radical Islam you don’t have to go very much further than this little piece of national television fare.

It is a segment from CNN’s Larry King Live Show featuring an interview a few days after the Fort Hood event with Dr.Phil, a woman in the Veteran’s Affairs Administration, and a JAG lawyer.

Philip McGraw gets the head start, which means he gets to frame the discussion that follows. For him, this is a mental/emotional issue, full stop.

You can’t blame him for that, it is his field, it is the prism through which he views the world, and it is the thing he is most comfortable talking about.

I would venture to say he knows diddly-squat about Islam, from at least one comment he made.

Next up are two other split screen guests, Shoshana Johnson, who served in Iraq and was, for a brief period, a POW, and Tom Kenif (not sure of the spelling) a JAG officer and criminal lawyer who also served in Iraq.

Kenif disputes the mental explanation, believing the truth may lie in Islamic extremism. However, both McGraw and Johnson jump down his throat, accusing him of saying dangerous things that are simply untrue and ridiculous. It is also pretty clear from King’s interjections that he finds Kenif’s explanation suspect.

At various times, Dr. Phil says things like, “You can’t make sense out of nonsense” and “Well (mentally healthy) people don’t pick up a gun and kill their friends.”

Unfortunately for Kenif, in the ensuing argument he falls into Dr. Phil’s trap, agreeing that a person who murders people for religious reasons is mentally ill. At that point he loses the argument.

Wrong, Dr. Phil. That is music to the Islamists’ ears.

Go on spouting about mental illness and believing that the military should focus on stress and not religion. This was a one-off, an isolated incident, completely explained away by westernized notions of mental illness. It has nothing to do with Islam. Move along now, nothing to see here.

The Islamic Project will give you a big medal for that one.

There is no reason to think whatsoever that an Islamic radical who kills the perceived enemies of Allah, with the full knowledge that if he dies in that battle he will be guaranteed eternal life in Paradise -- the only guaranteed path in the Koran -- is mentally ill. There is nothing nonsensical about this if the religion makes sense.

The only way that could be true is if you were to say that all people who believe religious doctrine must be mentally ill. No American is going to say that, certainly not Dr. Phil.

You could possibly refine that last statement and say that only people who believe the religious dogma of Islam are mentally ill because of the violence it spawns. Again, no American in the mainstream media and establishment is going to say that.

If Major Hasan was acting out of purely religious motivation then the soldiers he killed or tried to kill were not his friends, Dr. Phil. They were his enemies. There is nothing irrational about that. Soldiers are supposed to kill their enemies.

And if you knew anything at all about Islam, Mr. McGraw, you would know that Muslims are not permitted to make friends with non-believers.

Mr. Kenif had the right idea even if he couldn’t follow it up properly on the King show.

The safest way to proceed after Fort Hood is to assume an Islamic influence and act accordingly, and revise your judgment only if subsequent evidence emerges that mental factors unrelated to religion are prevalent. This would be called an application of the precautionary principle, or, as we used to say, doing something simply out of an abundance of caution.

Unfortunately, the Dr. Phils in America control the high ground and more Fort Hood disasters can be expected in the future.

On a related note, here is a Washington Post story of the first post-Fort Hood interview with Hasan’s jihadist mentor.

New York trial pushes Pentagon agenda

2009-11-14T08:22:00.013-05:00

In a race against time the Pentagon has shifted some of its vast resources to step up the program to develop the H2O Follicle Enhancer and bring it to market early in the New Year, in an effort to roll it out six months earlier than originally scheduled.

“At least 200 additional specialists have been reassigned to this work in the past week as well as an additional $10 million dollars injected into its budget”, said a Pentagon spokesperson, who requested anonymity.

The HFE has been a “hush-hush” project in the basement labs at the “Pent” for the past year, administered by PROFITS, the acronym for the Program Research Office for Investigating Technology Spinoffs.

PROFITS was initially set up under the Eisenhower administration in the mid-1950s because the U.S. government was embarrassed by the amount of money it was devoting to scientific research for military and warfare purposes.

“Eisenhower, who always had a concern about the industrial – military hegemony in the economy, believed if some of the research could be turned to useful consumer use there would be a morally defensible way of supporting such expenditures and that it would have the added benefit of recouping some of the taxpayers dollars through volume sales of the spinoffs”, said the source.

It is the announcement by the Obama administration that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attack, will be brought to New York and put on trial that has the Pentagon in such a dither. The defence will discredit evidence of information obtained from waterboarding and attempt to have that evidence thrown out.

The Pentagon is concerned that public disclosure of its waterboarding techniques will harm its commercial opportunities.

“One of the exciting things we learned at Guantanamo”, said the source, “is that waterboarding can produce prodigious hair growth. You only have to look at the before and after pictures of Khalid (shown above) to see the results. In the first photo, taken at the time of his capture, you see a depressed man, losing his hair, and in the after shot is the same person -- no really -- sporting a luxuriant beard.”

“Also note the bright-eyed twinkle in the second photograph. This man has been fully restored to health and he owes it all to waterboarding.”

“You know", said the spokesperson, "We got all the 9/11 information from this guy in the first waterboarding session, within about three minutes, but the next day the guards noticed that his face fuzz had grown more than inch overnight. When that news got back to Washington, it was decided to continue the waterboarding to see if more growth would be stimulated. That was what accounted for the other 79 dunkings Khalid received. The outcome was both stunning and undeniable. The PROFITS folks at the Pentagon were very excited.”

When asked about the market possibilities for the H2O Follicle Enhancer, the source said it would likely be an export market that would drive sales, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia amongst Muslim men, and in India amongst Sikhs.

“The market for a beard growing product is just so-so in the Western Hemisphere, but face beavers are all the rage in the Islamic world. The women like them too, for obvious reasons I need not go into right now and that will not be a direct selling point in the marketing campaign, but will be understood nonetheless”, said the spokesperson. "The demographics favor strong market demand, as well, with so many of the potential buyers being under the age of 24 and unattractive to women because of difficulties in growing full beards."

Pentagon researchers have been working overtime to find the right ratio of uric acid to water that they believe is one of the keys to the stimulation of hair follicles. Uric acid is produced by human urine. They are also interested in knowing whether the cultural/racial make-up of the soldiers who emptied their bladders into the water used on Khalid is important.

“It could be a diet thing. If the soldier was Hispanic and had just consumed a burrito within the hour before he appeared at the waterboarding site the density or purity of the acid may be different from a Caucasian soldier who had a tuna sandwich.”

PROFITS has also engaged a highly-respected boutique New York marketing consulting agency to assist it in developing a marketing program, but has not made the agreement public as yet. However, it has been confirmed that the Ron Jon Surf Shop has been contracted to develop a commercially appealing waterboard.

“Something colorful and comfortable that conveys more laid back Beach Boys and less Torquemada is the goal”, said the spokesperson. "After all, who would want to be uncomfortable while they are choking?"

In praise of bigots

2009-11-11T18:22:00.013-05:00

Carrie Prejean, Famous California Bigot

What follows is one of the more interesting responses to my recent blog postings that I have received in a while. I have set it out in italics and my reaction to it is posted below in normal font.

Anonymous writes:

This blogger (a Canadian?) is a closet Islamic bigot, hiding behind a facade of social consciousness (women's rights/homosexual rights, and protecting apostates, etc.)...substituting 'Muslim' for 'Nazi' (in his whimsical retelling of the Ft. Hood new story) really betrays this fact.

Islam is not Nazism, not even close (the write has never met a Nazi, I believe, and very few real followers of Islam). If one is calculating body counts, Christianity (which has also historically encouraged a "holy war' mentality) is at least as murderous as Islam, taken as a whole. Christianity is also anti-female, anti-homosexual (though the church has been a haven for homosexuals for centuries), and, of course, intolerant of apostates and dissenters (remember the Holy Inquisition?)---until the present age, at least (but I note the current Pope's declaration that the "true enemy" of monotheism is "secularism"--perpetuating the martial mentality towards the perceived "other").

While I do agree with people like David Brooks (recent op-ed about choice and evil)...I temper my "conditioned prejudice reflex" with (what I hope is) a deeper sense of cultural understanding. The non-judgmental "reaction" by leaders following the shooting is a sign of how far we have come as a nation from the days of instantaneous scapegoating (of the "other)...the blog writer would seem to prefer (under the guise of a word substitution exercise) that we mentally replace the foreigner term (Muslim or mole) with the modern era's most evil label (Nazi).

Here's my "whimsical" response to the "dead reckoning" blogger's post:

Yes, that's right, let's stop giving people with foreign names and beliefs the benefit of the doubt anymore...Let's encourage out political leaders to "shoot first, ask questions later"...let's foster public cries for retaliation (a slippery slope once you use the term "Nazi")...let's return to the 19th Century!...and then go through the bloody socio- evolutionary process once again...until maybe we wake up and learn and truly progress...

The blog writer routinely generalizes Islam and makes statements like "Islam is the only religion that preaches destruction of Western civilization" etc....Not distinguishing between Islamic teaching and Koranic teaching, and, in the context of discussing what the Koran preaches, he conflates the two...leaving the reader with the impression that the Koran says these things.

Here is a quote from the Koran (Sura 5, verse 13, I believe): "Be ye steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of other people blind you, that ye deal not justly."

As Dick Cheney has shown us, it is simple (minded) to "cherry pick" this or that passage to justify this or that prejudice (the bible was used to justify slavery; "All are welcome at my father's table...master and slave...." etc.)

Like most monotheistic, religious holy books, there is much content that is a reflection of the historical epoch in which the writing came about...often containing prejudices and misunderstandings...but also, admonitions like the foregoing Koranic quote (it's rough equivalent in the West: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you")...

Again, the blog writer, in my opinion is a bigot. His efforts seem little different from when Laura Bush noted the oppression of women in Afghanistan (as an additional moral justification for occupying the land)...as if she were a defender of women's rights (!)

...By the way, the FBI investigation into Hasan’s communication with al-Awlaki (American born, Yemeni cleric) was deemed to be related to Hasan's PTSD research (professional duties), and did not exhibit any "warning signs" or pose any threat...thus the investigation did not lead to any termination or suspension of Hasan's duties.

The recent admonition by Obama (and others) not to rush to judgment...was the ethically and socially correct thing to do.

I agree that there is such a thing as evil in the world (though I disagree with its commonly judged causes) ...but also, that we should not rush to judgment of someone based upon his/her cultural practices and beliefs. WE ALL KNOW THIS ALREADY. It is possible to believe both, despite what the pundits amongst us try to argue in favor of (this way or that, never both).

The war 'over there" has hit home once again...did you think that we were immune? Apart from the geo-political strategic reasons for occupying two Islamic nations (and a third being Saudi Arabia, with 20 K US troops stationed there)...we are fighting against extremism in all its forms (religious, social, political, economic)...our side has equally as many religious fanatics willing to kill or cry "holy war" (or "culture war")....this is the only enemy (same as it ever was)...let's find some concrete ways to combat it.....hmmm, maybe starting with
"love thy neighbor as thyself"....?

Navigator (aka bigot) replies:

Normally I am not one to dwell on the ideological language employed by the left wing and the right wing. I am more interested in the actual arguments advanced by the parties, but this piece is chock-a-block full of such leftist politico-babble that I simply could not resist commenting on that aspect of it. Is there a school somewhere that teaches the correct form for the articulation of leftist conceits 101, because they all seem to follow a common format?

We have the obligatory accusation of racism or Islamophobia; take your pick, which must always appear at the beginning of such a piece so that there is no shadow of a doubt that the subject of the accusation has no legitimacy. In this case the accusation is that I am an Islamic bigot, but not an ordinary Islamic bigot, I am a closet Islamic bigot (almost like a secret society bigot).

But the writer (who I shall hereafter designate in the masculine gender) has unmasked me, ripping away my guise of being concerned about such leftist-owned causes as women’s rights, homosexual rights and concern for apostates, to show that none of these really matter to me because I am just an Islamophobe and therefore have nothing useful or reliable to offer on any of those subjects.

We have the usual accusations of false argument, which the writer immediately employs on his own behalf with no shame of hypocrisy. For example, Anonymous wags a finger at me for the evil of “cherry picking” to bolster my argument (without identifying the example, mind you) and then proceeds to do exactly that by quoting some single sura from the Koran that fits his theme.

Likewise, it seems to Anonymous that I ought to know a Nazi or a Muslim before I write about them. He does not offer us his credentials in that respect, but is quite comfortable launching into a discussion of these matters anyway. Why do leftists feel that they command the public stage and they can play on it without abiding by the rules they seek to impose on others. The arrogance of that posture is breathtaking.

Anonymous fallaciously sets up a straw man that he attributes to me and then proceeds to knock him down (the body count thing).

The babble part is the business about the “other”. If only we didn’t think in terms of the “other” then there would be no “other” and we would have no problems, it all comes down to us to stop thinking there is an “other”. I have always thought this line is claptrap. Just because I don’t want to think there is a wolf at my door is not going to determine whether or not there is one.

But enough on the structure of Anonymous’ attack. Let me deal with the substance.

Anonymous seems to have missed the point of my satire. It was not driven by a desire to compare Islamism with Nazism. It was to compare the current climate of political correctness in speech and thought with that which prevailed amongst the military and government authorities in my father’s generation. The key to the piece was that the statements were taken as if they had occurred in the early 1940s, during a war with Germany, and, fairly looked at in that historical sense, they seem ludicrous.

I am not, by any measure, a “closet Islamic bigot”. I make no bones about the fact that I do not like Islam. Read my blog, I have almost nothing positive to say about it. If I am in a closet on that subject, it is one with three walls and a door all made of glass. Nor does the appellation of bigot stick, since by definition a bigot is an unreasonably intolerant person. I a reasonably intolerant person, or, put another way, a person who is intolerant for good reasons.

I am an atheist. I have acknowledged that fact repeatedly on my blog. I do not hide my bias. I don’t like any religion: a pox on all your holy books, as it were. But I have deep concerns about Islam above the others and for good reasons, which I will elaborate hereafter.

I don’t think it is sufficient for Anonymous to simply assert, as if it were an obvious fact, that Islamism and Nazism are “not even close”. He should at least be intellectually honest and make the case for that proposition. Otherwise it is merely a conclusion in search of a premise.

Anonymous should explain why he thinks that Islam and German National Socialism differ on the key issues – just the ones that would concern us in a pluralistic, liberal democracy. I am referring to matters such as triumphalism, the will to power, racism, treatment of Jews, treatment of non-Nazis and non-Muslims and so on. I would be curious to see how Anonymous parses the differences, if he can actually identify them.

Anonymous failed to mention that I credited Geert Wilders with the proposition that there are similarities between Nazism and Islamism, but I won’t hide behind that because I do believe there are some disturbing similarities: the hatred of Jews being one, the claim to super status in the world being another, and the idea that women are primarily breeders for the perpetuation of the race, being just another example. The list goes on.

Ah, then we have the old “Christianity is just as bad or worse” moral relativism argument. I have heard better arguments: Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed a lot more people than all the mainline Abrahamic religious people ever did.

So what? How does that excuse Islam’s atrocities? Just because Al Capone killed more people than John Dillinger doesn’t exonerate Dillinger from his crimes or cause us to think more highly of him.

I am no apologizer for Christianity, as I have made clear in the foregoing, but it is not Christians who are blowing up and shooting non-Christians in the name of their religion. That might have been the case long ago, or perhaps not so long ago, if one considers Northern Ireland, but in the 21st century that activity is now a near monopoly of the Muslims, and it is the here and now that concerns me, not the long history of this activity.

And it also concerns me that it is not confined to only Muslim lands; would that it were, because that would be an easy out, but it is worldwide. Neither the IRA nor the Tamil Tigers ever threatened my safety and security in Canada. The same cannot be said for some of the followers of Islam.

When I must run a gauntlet of oppressive security measures at airports, have my passport checked 5 times between the checked-luggage kiosk and stepping aboard the airplane, having my ass and balls grabbed by some bored security agent, and have to partially disrobe in public, it is not because Christians have been previously caught with weapons or bombs hidden in their Bibles or shoes.

Rest assured, Anonymous, that if Christians start down this same road, I will be as equally concerned and as equally harsh about them. At my core, you will be able to say with confidence and pride that you know me to be an equal opportunity bigot.

I don’t think Anonymous’s case is helped much by laying the distinction at my door that I failed to make; i.e., what the Koran says versus Islamic teaching. This accusation would make sense if the Koran contained nothing but verses of love and kisses for all, and Islamic teaching was something quite different.

In fact, the Koran contains many suras that talk about fighting and killing non-Muslims. Additionally, the Hadith (the best example of the Muslim life as referenced by the way Mohammed lived his and what he had to say about it) is another source of Islamic religious duty, law and precedence. The world is not a better place as a result of the massacre Mohammed visited upon the Jews who rejected him as a prophet of God.

These are the sources Islamic leaders cite when they pronounce death sentences against novelists, cartoonists, publishers, movie makers, screen writers, translators, and even duly elected members of legislatures, none of whom live in Muslim lands, authorizing any Muslim in the world to kill these people. It is the source material for the justifications cited by al Qaeda leaders and their acolytes for their murderous activities and the source of justification offered by ordinary Muslims who take it upon themselves to visit death and destruction on non-Muslims.

These violent suras are no less authentic and authoritative than the sweetness and light one that Anonymous cherry-picked.

Anonymous betrays his own faulty reading skills. At no time did I make the claim, direct or implied, that the Koran teaches the destruction of western civilization.

In fact, the idea that Islam is the only religion at war with western civilization was not my proposition at all. It came from a Pakistani-born, Canadian Muslim, Tarek Fatah, who has written a book about Islam, which was the subject of another one of my blog postings.

Now I am beginning to get a sense of what Mark Steyn must have felt when he faced human rights complaints about what he had written and the Muslims were, in reality, not complaining about his viewpoint, but the fact that he merely reported what other Muslims had said.

Anonymous seems to assume I am a war-monger with respect to Islam. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

I have stated previously on my blog that I think the Afghanistan effort is wasted, that we should bring our army home when our commitment expires in 2011, and we should avoid mucking around militarily in Muslim lands in the future. I was opposed from the outset to the American invasion of Iraq. So I don’t really know how I got “conflated”, to borrow his word, with the likes of Dick Cheney and Laura Bush.

I don’t want to fight Islam; I just wish to protect my liberal-democracy society from that ideology. I am looking for an effective shield, not a sword. Is there a problem with that?

Well, there is when the top soldier in the United States professes to be more concerned about backlashes against Muslims than the future safety and security of non-Muslims. If the military cannot protect its own, perhaps it should take a leaf out of the playbook of one of the Scandinavian police forces that hired a private security firm to protect the police. And if the military cannot even safe-keep its own, then what hope is there for the rest of us on civvy street?

I am aware of the public details of the investigation by the FBI of Major Hasan’s communications with the radical Islamist in Yemen and that the investigation was suspended because the investigator concluded it was not terrorist related. It is interesting to note the response of that al Qaeda recruiter to Major Hasan’s 10 minutes of mayhem:
Anwar al-Awlakid posted a blog entry titled 'Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing' on his web site. In the post, Awlaki calls Hasan a 'hero’, and writes:

"[Hasan] is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges. Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal."

President Obama referred to Hasan’s “twisted logic”. So much for the non-judgmental leaders Anonymous so admires.

There is nothing twisted about Hasan’s understanding of his religious duty. In fact, Major Hasan had suggested early on that all Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military should be granted conscientious objector status as long as U.S. soldiers were being deployed for combat in Muslim countries. That was a most sensible and logical solution to this problem. It is unfortunate that nobody took him seriously enough to follow through with it.

I make no claims about the existence of good and evil as some sort of cosmic force, I will leave the proof of that one for Anonymous. I can only distinguish actions that I would be inclined to call good from those that I would likely brand as evil. What Major Hasan did was evil, and praising what he did is evil.

Finally, a word about love thy neighbour.

In Christianity this is supposed to apply to everybody. In Islam it is restricted to only Muslims. This is a distinction Mr. Obama failed to note in his Cairo speech.

At the end of the day

2009-11-09T13:40:00.005-05:00

Let’s have a little fun with the U.S. military and government and its most important talking points about the Fort Hood massacre.

The New York Times published this story.

I am going to take a page from Geert Wilders and assume that the Koran and Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, are equally odious in that they tell people to go out and kill other people who don’t agree with them and who belong to some identifiable class; in the case of the Koran it is Infidels, Jews and Christians, and in the case of Hitler’s bible, it is Jews, and that both books are political ideologies.

So in the Times story instead of Muslims, we will substitute Nazis, and pretend that we are back in the 1940s combating Nazism in Europe. We’ll cut out some superfluous reporting, and pretend that the shooter was a German American, and see what this looks like.

Army Chief Concerned for Nazi Troops

General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the political beliefs of the officer accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Nazi soldiers.”

“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”

General Casey, who was appeared on three Sunday news programs, used almost the same language during an interview on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” an indication of the Army’s effort to ward off bias against the more than 3,000 Nazis in its ranks.

“A diverse Army gives us strength,” General Casey, who visited Fort Hood Friday, said on “This Week.”

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said that as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee he intended to investigate the officer’s suspected motives and whether the Army “missed warning signs that should have led them to essentially discharge him.”

“If he was showing signs, saying to people that he had become a complete and committed Nazi, and not just a half-assed, laissez-faire Nazi, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance,” Senator Lieberman said. “He should have been gone.”

Asked whether he thought the Army “dropped the ball” in not responding to warning signs that the officer was increasingly radical, General Casey replied that he was encouraging soldiers to provide information to criminal investigators. But he added that the Army needs to be careful not to jump to conclusions based on early tidbits of information.

“The speculation could heighten the backlash,” he said on “This Week.” “What happened at Fort Hood is a tragedy and I believe it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, and Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island, took also pains on Sunday to say that Nazis have served honorably in the military and at risk to their lives.

“At the end of the day this is not about his politics — the fact that this man was a Nazi,” Senator Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“At the end of the day, maybe this is just about him. It’s certainly not about his politics, German National Socialism.”

He added: “To those members of the United States military who are Nazis, thank you for protecting our nation, thank you for standing up against Hitler who is trying to hijack your political beliefs.”

Obama has a near "Brownie moment"

2009-11-07T11:25:00.007-05:00

We all remember former President George W. Bush, patting his hapless Director of FEMA on the shoulder and saying, “You are doing a heck of job, Brownie.”

In that moment, more than anything else that had transpired, he doomed his Presidency. People were prepared to give him a lot of slack on his war in Iraq because they were not sure that he was wrong about keeping America safe. But when they saw the plight of Americans in New Orleans and saw how disconnected his administration seemed to be from what was so obvious in all the media coverage, the electorate started to disengage.

It was like the late President Nixon’s famous declaration, “I am not a crook.”

These kinds of comments have a self-serving ambience about them that simply exacerbates a problem of dissonant public perception, rather than smoothing it over.

That brings me to President Barack Obama’s rather extraordinary media reaction to the events in Fort Hood. I tuned in to him when it was advertised that he would speak about it. At first, I thought I must have been misinformed. He was rambling on congratulating some Indian conference organizers and getting the audience to recognize some local hero. I was just about to move on when he brought up Fort Hood.

It was creepy and reminded me of the minutes after 9/11 when George Bush received the news in a children’s classroom and seemed not the slightest moved by it. That Obama wouldn’t start off the top of the microphone opportunity with the Fort Hood commentary was very strange.

After doing the ritual of "how our prayers and thoughts are with the wounded and the families of the deceased", he then started in about himself and his job and his responsibility. Don’t want to dwell to long on those sad Texas folks and take your eyes off the most important thing in the United States -- me.

This guy is supposed to be one of the best public speakers in America, but he is surely no Ronald Reagan when it comes to conveying the appropriate emotion.

He is busy telling us not to jump to conclusions until all the facts are in. This is code for, "Don’t start blaming Islam because I have been kissing Islamic ass for nearly a year and you will upset all the benefits to be derived from my groveling and abasement, and wreck my Presidency, and that would be a disaster for America."

OK. I won’t jump to conclusions.

Let’s add up the facts so far:

Islam preaches Jihad against non-Muslims.

The shooter’s parents are Palestinians and he is a life-long Muslim – a regular at the mosque.

The shooter has been making anti-American comments for some time, expressing his opposition to the wars in the Middle East by non-Muslims and suggesting that Muslims should fight back.

He folded up his tent in anticipation of going somewhere, saying goodbye to all his friends.

He used private weapons which he acquired just prior to the shootings and he employed a type of gun that is rapid fire, accurate, Kevlar-piercing, and can be loaded with a 30- round clip. I am not saying he used a 30-round clip, but many people found it difficult to believe he could have hit so many people with a single pistol.

He shouted "Allah Akbar" while he fired his gun; it is a common expression for those who are about to destroy non-Muslims to preface their action with cries of "Allah Akbar".

I’ll wait for more facts before coming to a conclusion, as Dear Leader asks, but, in the meantime, I am reminded of that old saw: if it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it most probably is a duck.

Time for religious profiling in military service

2009-11-06T11:15:00.010-05:00

Did a lack of religious profiling lead to the Fort Hood disaster?

In World War Two, the United States and Canada transported citizens of Japanese ancestry inland and kept them in camps until the war was over. This was done for several reasons.

The first was that the North American Japanese were a small, visible minority, so it was easy to do, without serious political consequences. The second was that the vast majority lived on the west coast where our forces were facing the Imperial might of Japan. The third reason was that it was impossible for the authorities to be able to determine whether these people would identify with their North American homeland or with their racial ancestry and, if the latter, would they actively attempt to sabotage our war efforts.

We will never know the answer to that conundrum because we never gave them an opportunity to show us.

After the war, when multi-culturalist politics became de rigueur and political correctness infected our English usage rules, we apologized to these people for the horrible racist manner in which we treated them. Ever since then we have gone out of our way to make sure we do not repeat our racist policies, even if those policies may have protected us.

In the usual clarity of the view through the rear-view mirror we now see the signs that Major Hasan, life-long Muslim, had openly expressed deep misgivings about the U.S. military invading the homelands of Muslims and killing them.

Had the authorities had been rigorous about religious profiling of possible military risks this man might have merited a different assignment or a mustering out.

In the Cold War, it would have been unthinkable to put an avowed communist on the front lines of the military. Why would the army propose to send a Muslim to a theatre of war in which Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims and expect him to do his duty?

I will bet, starting today, the U.S. military will begin investigating every serving member who follows the teachings of Mohammed, PC and MC be damned, and that recruitment officers will be given a new set of instructions to weed out potential religious problems.

The following are the current posted grounds for ineligibility for U.S. military service. Religious affiliation is not referenced even though the United States has been fighting in Muslim countries for 8 years, but sexual perversion (whatever that means) will definitely show you to the door.

US Military Enlistment Standards

In general, the following additional conditions will render one ineligible for enlistment, and waivers will not normally be granted:

1. Intoxicated or under influence of alcohol or drugs at time of application, or at any stage of processing for enlistment.
2. Having history of psychotic disorders or state of insanity.
3. Questionable moral character.
4. Alcoholism.
5. Drug dependence.
6. Sexual perversion.
7. History of antisocial behavior.
8. History of frequent or chronic venereal disease.
9. Previously separated for unfitness, unsuitability, unsatisfactory performance, misconduct or bar to reenlistment, with 18 or more years of active Federal service completed.
10. Military retirees (can be waived in some cases).
11. Persons unable to present written evidence (official documents) of prior service claimed, until such service has been verified.
12. Persons whose enlistment are not clearly consistent with interests of national security.
13. Last discharged or separated from a component of a U.S. Armed Force, with an other than honorable or general administrative discharge.
14. Criminal or juvenile court charges filed or pending against them by civil authorities.
15. Persons under civil restraint, such as confinement, parole, or probation.
16. Subject of initial civil court conviction or adverse disposition for more than one felony offense.
17. Civil conviction of a felony with any one of the following:
a. Three or more offenses (convictions or other adverse dispositions) other than traffic.
b. Applicants with juvenile felony offenses who have had no offenses within 5 years of application for enlistment may be considered for a waiver in meritorious cases.
18. Subject of initial civil court conviction or other adverse dispositions for sale, distribution, or trafficking (including "Intent To:) of cannabis (marijuana), or any other controlled substance.
19. Prior Service with an RE-Code of "4." (Note: The Army will sometimes waive a re-enlistment eligibility code of "4," when that code was issued by another service, and the individual's discharge characterization is "uncharacterized," or "honorable."
20. Persons with a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable punitive (court-martial) discharge.
21. Persons with prior service last discharged from any component of the Armed Forces for drug or alcohol abuse, or as rehab failure during their last period of service.
22. Three or more convictions or other adverse dispositions for driving while intoxicated, drugged, or impaired in the 5 years preceding application for enlistment.
23. Confirmed positive drug test at MEPS. (Note: The Navy, Marine Corps, and Army may waive this, after a waiting period. The Coast Guard and Air Force never waive this).
24. Persons with convictions or other adverse dispositions for 5 or more misdemeanors preceding application for enlistment.
25. Alien without lawful admittance or legal residence in the United States.
26. Permanently retired by reason of physical disability.
27. Individuals receiving disability compensation from the VA (may be waived in some cases, as long as the member agrees to give up the disability compensation).
28. Officers removed from active or inactive service by reason of having attained maximum age or service.
29. Discharged by reason of conscientious objection.

For comparison, here is a discussion of the Indian army recruitment practices on the Super Hindu website.

About the Muslim under-representation in the Indian army, the reasons are three. One was Partition. Before Independence, Muslims were around 25 per cent of the Indian army and 25 per cent of undivided India. But when India broke up and Muslim soldiers were asked to choose between India and Pakistan, they joined Pakistan en masse. So Muslim numbers in the Indian army dropped so drastically that they were only 2 per cent in 1953, according to India’s then minister of state for defence. Jawaharlal Nehru himself expressed concern that “hardly any Muslims” were left in the army. And Muslim numbers never really picked up in the last 60 years for a well-known reason.

India’s military establishment hesitates to hire Muslims as soldiers because it suspects Muslim loyalty to India. This discrimination is a natural outcome of India and Pakistan’s bitter hostility over 60 years. In similar situations, the same thing happens all over the world. The Israeli army doesn’t trust its Arab soldiers in jobs related to defence security. The Buddhist Sinhalese army under-recruits its Hindu Tamils lest their sympathies lie with the Tamil Tigers. After 9/11, US army recruiters would probably screen a Muslim American volunteer more thoroughly than a Christian American. Thanks to our four wars with Pakistan, the same anti-Muslim animus works here in army recruitment.

Proof of it lies in an enormous mass of documentary and other evidence which expresses distrust of Muslims. Otherwise, why does India have separate regiments for the Sikhs, Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Mahars, the Nagas, even the Gurkhas, but not a single Muslim regiment? This is tragic but it’s a truth which shouldn’t be suppressed. It should be acknowledged and dealt with.

Events have consequences. Muslim under-recruitment in the Indian army is a consequence of Partition. India and Pakistan’s hostility is seen in both countries in Hindu versus Muslim terms. So it’s natural for India’s Hindu army establishment to distrust a Muslim who wants to join as a soldier.

This prejudice itself discourages qualified Muslim youths from applying, which drives down Muslim numbers even more. Another reason for Muslim under-recruitment is the relatively poor education of Muslims. When they try to enlist as soldiers, they are simply out-competed by better-educated Sikh, Hindu, and Christian youths. So Muslim leaders are quite right that Muslim under-recruitment in the army deprives the community of a good, life-long source of employment. It’s a sad situation not so easy to correct.

The author of this piece clearly has a better opinion of the sagacity of American military recruiters than the available evidence would support.

Religious flowchart -- what a concept

2009-11-04T19:17:00.002-05:00

This is as useful a guide to religion as I have come across in a long time. I really value the simplicity and comprehensiveness of flowcharts.

Thanks to a correspondent for this -- I preserve privacy on this blog, but he knows who he is because he is a regular reader.

Random thoughts on God and religion

2009-11-04T11:29:00.005-05:00

Whilst walking my Labrador Retriever this morning I found myself ruminating on the arguments for God. I wondered if my dog is cognizant of God. I think not.

As I walked through the forest I considered the old question of whether a tree that falls in the forest when nobody is present makes a sound. The correct answer is no. Sound requires something to propagate waves in the air and something to receive those waves and interpret them. Both things are essential for the existence of a sound.

So, here is the thing.

If no humans existed, ever, would there still be an argument to be made for the existence of God? If yes, then who would make it? Does the existence of God depend entirely on the existence of humans?

The Abrahamic religions tell us that God created humans to worship and obey him.

We know that the Universe is about 10 billion years old. We know the Earth is about 4 billion years old. We know that modern humans first appeared about 100,000 years ago. We believe on the best available evidence that the modern human brain functionally capable of contemplating God first came into being about 50,000 years ago.

So, here is the thing.

What caused God to create a creature capable of knowing of his existence 50,000 year ago? Why not 100,000 years ago? Why not 100 million years ago? Pick any time frame. What was the burning need in God to have a creature capable of contemplating him and worshipping him and why did this need arise only 50,000 years ago?

Questions. Always with the questions.

And here is another one.

We know that Islam discourages the graven images of humans, and that Muslims get very angry at depictions of Mohammed. Yet I have never heard of Muslims creating a ruckus over depictions of Allah, of which there are many in the history of art in Western civilization.

Why is that? How is that Mohammed takes precedence over God? Why does he get to have urban riots in his name because of pictorial representations, but not God? I was in the Sistine Chapel a couple of months ago and noticed a few Muslims gazing up at Michaelangelo’s painting of the Almighty. It did not seem to ruffle them.

And yet another one.

This one I have to attribute to Melanie Phillips in The Spectator.

Why all the fuss over the Jewish settlements in the lands claimed by the Palestinians? Just take the necessary steps to inaugurate the state of Palestine and let the Jews who live there become citizens of the Palestinian state. After all, the Jewish state has a significant number of Arab citizens. If the settlers don’t like that prospect, and I am confident they would not, then they can move to Israel and free up the settlements for Arabs.

In short, it is a self-correcting problem and making into the kind of deal-breaking condition precedent to peace is a red herring.

Fairness, the lost value in our justice system

2009-11-03T12:36:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I find myself feeling overwhelmingly angry at officialdom and those we elect or appoint to public office. They seem to be so out of touch with what the public thinks or wants so much of the time, especially when it comes to issues of justice and fairness.

In Toronto a shopkeeper in Toronto’s downtown Chinatown shopping district chased down a thief who had stolen $60 worth of merchandise from him earlier in the day, captured him, tied him up and called police to take him away. That they did, but before leaving the scene they arrested the shopkeeper and charged him with kidnapping, assault, carrying a concealed weapon (a box cutter) and forcible confinement.

The thief admitted his crime in court and also admitted to another theft that day; he had a long record of petty theft and was well-known for his shoplifting career. The judge reduced the recommended sentence of 90 days incarceration to 30 days in return for the agreement of the thief to testify against the shopkeeper in his trial.

In the past two days, the Chief of Police in Toronto, Bill Blair, has held a conference with the media to deny that the police had any involvement in the reduction of the sentence and to plead for understanding that their hands are tied when it comes to laying such charges. The confidence in the police amongst the Chinese community in Toronto, which is a large community, has dropped like stone. The Chief, of course, lays the blame on the media misinforming the public.

The idea that instead of charging this shopkeeper, the cops should have given him a medal at a public awards ceremony for helping to keep Toronto safe from crime never entered Mr. Blair’s consciousness.

But that is exactly what public thinks should have happened.

The Crown prosecutor however knows this to be true. The two most serious charges against the merchant have now been dropped, the kidnapping and concealed weapon charges, and he will go to trial on the lesser offenses. Earlier the merchant declined a plea bargain that would have seen him plead guilty to forcible confinement and concealment of a weapon in return for a suspended sentence and no jail time.

So what is the prosecutor up to? Going to trial on the lesser charges means the matter will be dealt with by a judge and not a jury. There is not a shadow of doubt that a jury would acquit this guy instantly and the Crown knows that. By offering that plea bargain the Crown has already conceded that this individual does not deserve to go to jail.

So rather than do the right thing, which is to drop all charges against Mr. Shopkeeper, we are still going through the farce of a public trial pretending that this man has actually done something wrong.

These people running this circus are all boneheads.

Unfortunately, unreasonable execution of office is not confined to Canada’s justice officials.

In the United States, as part of a plea bargain in the federal courts, a defendant must waive his or her rights to raise DNA evidence in any subsequent proceeding. DNA evidence has now become the gold standard in determining guilt or innocence, and all sorts of people who were convicted at trial are subsequently exonerated by comparing DNA evidence from a crime scene to that of the defendants.

People enter into plea bargains for all sorts of reasons that may have little to do with whether they actually committed the crime as charged, as was the case with the Toronto merchant had he decided to go with the plea bargain. It is standard practice in the U.S. to “throw the book” at an accused with the consequence of very long prison sentences and an accused must weigh carefully the risk that if he or she goes to trial the consequences could be very serious. Often a plea bargain is nothing more than a trade off on risks.

Prosecutors and judges are elected in the United States and they like to run on “hard on crime” platforms because it plays well with the voters. Prosecutors in particular like to boast about their high percentage of convictions, especially if they intend to parlay their courtroom curriculum vitae into a run for higher political office. It would be embarrassing and politically damaging to have their conviction records overturned on the basis of subsequent DNA analysis.

So fairness goes out the window in favour of career opportunities.

That really sucks.

Tarek Fatah says that Islam is the only religion bent on the destruction of Western civiliization

2009-10-31T10:23:00.009-05:00

Here is a picture of Hillary Clinton in Pakistan. She came close to being the President of the United States and had to settle for Secretary of State. I guess one should not be surprised to see her in a hijab since her boss went so far as to bow to the King of Saudi Arabia.

But what is the message to Islamists when an important non-Muslim dons Muslim approved head gear?

Give up?

That Islam is winning, so keep up the pressure. Do we really need the top people in the government of the United States to lend such a helping hand to that project?

I went to a lecture last evening in Toronto. The speaker was Tarek Fatah, who I have described in other postings on this blog as Canada’s leading Muslim reformer. Perhaps I am being a bit sexist with that remark since Irshad Manji is also well-known for her views on the reformation of Islam and is probably better known internationally than Fatah. So let’s just say he is one of Canada’s leading reformers.

He is quite entertaining because he is passionate about his subject and he pulls no punches. At one point he said, “Let’s face it, racism can be fun, and we have to work hard at not appearing to be racist.” Not many folks in our fair land would be brave enough to say that publicly.

Fatah was talking about the reason why he wrote his book, Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, published in 2008. He claims to have proved through his research that the notion of establishing a global Islamic state is a fable that has harmed Islam for more than 1,000 years and is a distortion of Mohammed’s message. He says he was trying to reach out to young Muslims who are swayed by Islamists into the folds of the radical Islamist movement.

Among the interesting tidbits he dropped in his lecture was the fact that every mosque in the Toronto area obtains sizeable funding from Saudi Arabia. I had not heard that before, although so many other mosques around the world are funded by that source it should not be surprising to find that ours are no exception.

He also pointed out that Pakistan is the only country in the world that was created exclusively for Muslims. That is an interesting argument to keep in mind when one hears the cries against the legitimacy of creating Israel as a homeland for the Jews.

Fatah supports the initiative of the Muslim Canadian Congress to petition the federal government to ban the burka and the niqab. He makes no bones about the fact that these garments are designed to marginalize women and have little to do with piety.

With a good deal of sarcasm he told of the post 9/11 visit by Canada’s top politicians to an Ottawa mosque to comfort Muslims in their hour of peril. One of the visitors was Alexa McDonough, who was then the leader of the federal NDP. The old, bearded Imam, who carried a walking stick, greeted them at the entrance and proceeded to rap her on her foot with it, and told her that her footwear was offensive as her toes were showing. He ordered her to go to the basement where all the women went. She complied.

Fatah says this is symbolic of what is wrong with our attitude to Islam (meaning non-Muslim attitudes). He said McDonough’s response ought to have been to slap the Imam in the face and lecture him on the perils of assaulting women.

He summarized the three great problems with Islam that need to be overcome: suppression of women, hostility to homosexuals and treatment of apostasy.

I would have added supremacy to that list.

Toronto's taqiyyameister

2009-10-29T08:16:00.011-05:00

Imam Said Rageah delivered a sermon in Toronto recently and stirred a hornet's nest when it was analysed in The National Post. He was a addressing an inititative of the
Muslim Canadian Congress, an Islamic reform group, headquartered in Toronto, which has petitioned the federal government to outlaw the burka and the niqab.

Here is a passage from that sermon:

"We have to establish Islam [in Canada]. I wanna see Islam in every single corner of the city; I would like to see niqabis, and hijabis [women wearing face masks and head covering] everywhere in the city. I want to see ‘brothers' [Muslim men] in beards everywhere in the city. Because when they see more of us, they will have more respect for us. They will say, ‘look they are everywhere...we cannot go against them'."

During his sermon he referred to non-Muslims as "kuffars" and advised his congregants not to make common cause with them on the MCC's proposal, because allying themselves with non-Muslims violates Islamic principles or laws. As a result of the reaction he received, he posted this reply in the same newspaper. My comments follow the letter.

Imam Said Rageah responds
Posted: October 23, 2009, 11:30 PM by Ron Nurwisah
Islam
Oct 23rd, 2009 --5 Dhul Qa’dah, 1430

Dear Congregants and Visitors of Other Faiths,

Recently, there was a news article describing my sermon and my practice of Islam as one that seeks to incite hatred. Usually, seeking to answer agenda-driven critics would only serve to distract me from my work of proclaiming the Shahadah, applying what it means in my personal life and also attempting to teach others in a practical and appropriate manner in an environment where practicing Islam can sometimes be portrayed unfairly as a threat.

In my little corner of our beautiful city of Toronto, I sometimes sit back and contemplate the course of my life. I live in a multicultural melting pot with a personal reality that is unique and diverse in many ways. For example, my father-in-law and mother-in-law are Christians, with whom I have a very respectful and loving relationship. When I talk with them, I reflect and ponder on the nature of the lives of my children and their development. Our unique Canadian montage will allow them to live in a society, where in spite of the circumstances of their birth or their heritage, they will find their own footing in the Canadian mosaic. They will carve out their own Islamic identity, an identity that will be free from persecution and enslavement of thought.

As stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. And among the fundamental principles which are the cornerstones of this society are the right to free speech, free thought, free expression and the ability to practice one’s own religious beliefs, all within reasonable, justifiable limits. I share and promote these values as they are also Islamic values.

I will be delivering a sermon today that will touch upon these issues and the recent controversies. What can be explored in 30 minutes cannot be easily compressed into a one-page statement, but let me try:

1. The expression “kuffar” is based on an operational definition, of what people do to hide something, like the truth about God (“Allah” in Arabic). In Arabic/Islamic terminology, it does not categorically refer to Christians and Jews, nor does it exclude Muslims.

2. Muslims are closer in belief and practice to observant Christians and Jews than they are to each other and Muslims respect each people as having received Revelation from the same God, and are correctly referred to as “People of the Book”.

3. Men and women in Islam are required to act and dress modestly. There are a range of interpretations, including hijab and niqab for women. The choice whether to veil, and the type of veil, should be entirely for each individual Muslim woman to make of her own free will.

4. Politics are shaped by public opinion and public opinion is shaped by the media. Rather than leaving ignorance to fill the vacuum, Muslims must fully engage in Canadian society with wisdom and the best of speech, to foster mutual respect and understanding and shape an even better country.

I invite you all to learn and share more about your faith and yourselves.

May God’s Peace and Blessings Be Upon Us All

Said Rageah

On the one hand he wants to portray himself as being a cosmopolitan citizen of Canada's leading cosmopolitan city. On the other, he professes ignorance that the word "Kuffar" would be considered derogatory by many in this community of which he claims to be a member. Well which is it?

If Muslims are closer to Christians and Jews than to each other, how does he explain the fact that there are virtually no Jews living in Middle Eastern countries where Islam prevails and the Christians that are there are migrating because of local hostility and lack of security and support from Muslim authorities. This alleged common God worship does not seem translate into peace and harmony amongst the religions of Abraham in the cradle of Islam.

Nobody in Canada who is not a Muslim would disagree that the manner of dress of an individual Muslim woman should be her choice. But there are Muslims who do not believe it is a free choice (the MCC) and there are suspicions that honour killings in the name of the religion have occurred here where Muslim women have chosen not to wear reliously-inspired culture-specific garments; e.g., Aqsa Parvez.

Why is this aspect of Islam never addressed by these religious guys? Instead, they spout back at us the principles by which we, not they, live, as if there is nothing more to be said on that subject.

Muslims must fully engage in Canadian society with wisdom and the best of speech, to foster mutual respect and understanding and shape an even better country.

Now that is a mouthful coming from a man who refers to other Canadians as Kuffars and avises his congregants to avoid making friends, allies or common cause with them because they are Kuffars.

He says he shares the Canadian principle of freedom of expression because this is an Islamic value. Since the bedrock of Islam is blind obedience to the word of God, how did freedom of expression get embedded in Islam?

Just this week we learned that U.S. authorities arrested two Muslim men who were plotting to kill the publisher of and one of the artists of the famous Danish cartoons. One of the men is a Canadian citizen from Toronto.

Perhaps the good Imam would spend some of his time in his 30 minute sermons explaining why Islam would frown on such people who believe killing to crush freedom of expression is an Islamic value.

In searching for information on this Imam, I turned up this website that identifies an Imam Said Regeah as a fundraiser for a charity that was later designated as terrorist support agency.

Tarek Fatah, Canada's leading reformist Muslim, also has some interesting things to say about this fellow's preachings.

More trouble for freedom of expression

2009-10-26T10:30:00.003-05:00

Slowly the light of freedom flickers and will soon be all but extinguished in the western world. The EU is very close to promulgating an anti-discrimination law which will bind all member nations, according to The Brussels Journal.

Just as the notorious Section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act has been used to criminalize free speech and has proven to more a sword than a shield, this EU law contains many of the same failings. The definition of harm is so broad that all sorts of expression will become subject to prosecution and the defendant will have to prove that the plaintiff was not “harassed” by statements attributed to the defendant, a virtually impossible defense to mount.

To be charged under this law will amount to being guilty of the offense. That has been Canada’s judicial experience and there is no reason to think it will be different in the EU.

Creeping world government

2009-10-23T09:00:00.004-05:00

Following on my last posting is an appeal by a European for America to stand steadfast behind its Consititution. And the second link takes you to a commentary on how that Constitution could be eroded to infect the United States with the same anti-free speech laws that prevent criticism of Islam in European states, and nearly in Canada.

Learning from the mistakes of others, or not

2009-10-20T11:35:00.004-05:00

The battles in Canada with the forces of multi-culturalism and political correctness to preserve free expression have been well publicized in the United States, the one country in the world that truly enshrines in its laws the unfettered right of free speech (unfettered by government fiat).

So you would think Americans would have learned something from us.

Nope.

The Obama government appears to be going down the same path that we took nearly two decades ago that has left us today with a tattered and nonsensical notion of human rights as they apply to free expression.

As part of Obama’s outreach program to Muslims, the U.S. has joined the odious United Nations Human Rights Council, dominated by the Islamic states who regularly engineer resolutions condemning the state of Israel and who have supported resolutions in the General Assembly calling for members of the U.N. to criminalize the “defamation of religion”, meaning the defamation of Islam, since Islam regularly defames other religions and non-religious beliefs.

As a counter to that resolution the U.S. has initiated a resolution that says the following, among other things:

Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents.

The resolution was passed at the Council and presumably is sent up the ladder to eventually be passed into U.N. law.

This poisonous stew is understood by Islamic nations to be a prescription whereby Muslims can use the government organs of non-Islamic states to prosecute criticism of Islam within those states, or they wouldn’t have supported it.

The key phrases in this paragraph for Muslims are “negative stereotyping of religions” and “advocacy of … religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination…”

Religions ought not to be exempt from criticism, especially a religion that is also a political ideology like Islam.

Consider these words in Canada’s Human Rights Act.

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate … any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Religion is one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under this statute.

These words justified several human rights agencies in Canada taking action against two news publishers; one who published the Danish cartoons and the other who published an excerpt from a book by author Mark Steyn who wrote about the rise of Islam in Europe. These actions were prompted by Muslim activists who claimed they were “likely to be exposed to hatred or contempt” because of these publications.

It would be easy to contemplate exactly the same actions being processed by the human rights regimes here on the grounds that these publications were advocating religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination.

It may also have unintended consequences. For example, if a secular advocacy group wanted to challenge the ritual of prayer in government legislatures, could that group be accused of inciting discrimination because it hated the idea of religion mixing with government? Would complaining about the separation of church and state become off-limits?

This is a slippery slope Mr. Obama’s “feel good” diplomacy has led America to and we know better than anybody what is at the bottom of it.

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis

2009-10-17T08:50:00.020-05:00

With Alfred Nobel, the Scandinavian munitions maker, much in the news lately after the surprise award of the Nobel Peace Prize to American President Barack Obama, it is worth reflecting on another munitions wizard who died forty years ago this month.

His name was Barnes Wallis (September 26, 1887 – October 30, 1979). He was a British scientist, engineer and inventor. He was also a school dropout, although he later obtained his engineering degree through university extension courses while still working. While most of his fame related to aircraft, he was actually a marine engineer.

He is credited with being the first to utilize geodesic design in engineering. This was employed in the construction of the R-100, the largest dirigible in its day. He is also responsible for being the first to use light alloys and production engineering while working on the R-100.

When Wallis moved to Vickers aircraft, his geodesic designs were already incorporated into the Wellesley and Wellington bombers produced by that company. This resulted in both a light and strong airframe. This engineering marvel was often the only thing that stood between life and death for the aircrew.

WELLINGTON BOMBER WITH FUSELAGE SHOT AWAY AND GEODESIC AIRFRAME INTACT

In the Second World War, he advocated strategic bombing to take out the enemy’s infrastructure, rendering it incapable of waging war.

Of course, when Israel does this against its enemies it is now branded by the U.N. Human Rights Council as committing war crimes. But that is for another posting.

Wallis recognized that a new type of bomb would be required to effectively implement his strategy. He devised the “earthquake bomb”. The idea was not to hit the target directly, but to penetrate to a deep level close to the structure and create a mini-earthquake that would undermine the foundation and render the structure useless.

This was a bomb that was huge, aerodynamically pure, very heavily constructed to provide maximum penetration before detonation, and intended to be dropped from a high altitude (40,000 feet) to obtain maximum terminal velocity of 320 miles per hour. His original design called for a bomb of ten tonnes.

Unfortunately, there were no bombers at the time capable of carrying such a monster. Undaunted, Wallis proposed a new aircraft to be called the Victory Bomber. It would weigh in 45 tonnes and be powered by six engines. It was rejected by the Air Ministry because the idea of having a single aircraft for single purpose of carrying a single bomb disturbed its idea of maximum flexibility in aircraft design.

Wallis then turned his attention to the idea of barrel-shaped bouncing bombs in marine attacks. These were bombs that did not immediately explode on impact with the water, but would skip across the surface much like a skipping stone and strike a target at its base underwater, like a depth-charge, using the water to concentrate the force of the bomb on the target.

BOMBER UNLEASHING THE BOUNCING BOMB

This required great precision in bombing and the idea only worked when Wallis discovered that putting backspin on the bomb caused it to fall behind the aircraft and gave it greater distance and prevented it from bouncing off the target.

These bombs were used against three dams in the Ruhr valley. The development and attack were documented in the British film, The Dambusters.

These dams were heavily protected and since the bombers were required to approach just above the surface of the water to create the skipping effect there was a heavy loss in aircraft and aircrew to anti-aircraft fire.

One of the pilots was an American, Joe McCarthy, who had enlisted in the RAF at the outset of the war. I knew McCarthy because he stayed in the Royal Canadian Air Force after the war and was my father’s commanding officer for a time. When the motion picture, The Dambusters, was shown on the air base, there was quite a lot of excitement and McCarthy got up and gave a speech before the film ran.

His story is that his airplane had engine trouble, and, as a result, he took off ten minutes after his squadron had left. As a result, he was able to sneak in a get off his bomb load since the German gunners had stood down thinking the raid was over.

Barnes Wallis was appalled at the aircraft losses in this attack. He subsequently became a pioneer in the use of remote controlled aircraft to test out designs without endangering aircrew. The extensive use of drone aircraft today can trace back to him and this raid on the Ruhr.

His big bomb idea became feasible when improvements were made to the Lancaster bomber. The Lancaster was the work horse of Bomber Command and could carry the largest payload prior to the advent of the B-29.

A LANCASTER BOMBER RECENTLY PHOTOGRAPHED AT WINNIPEG, THE ONLY ONE IN CANADA

The first big bombs were called “Tallboys” and they weighed 5 tonnes. When it was determined that the Lancaster could carry even heavier loads, if stripped of its armor and most armaments, the “Grand Slam” was produced, coming in at 10 tonnes. These bombs were used quite effectively against a number of stationary targets and there was a consequential benefit from the high level bombing of fewer aircraft losses.

A GRAND SLAM BOMB

These bombs could not be mass produced and were so expensive that aircrew were ordered to return to base with them if they could not be dropped on a target rather than jettisoning the load into the sea, which was the normal procedure for safety in landing. In short, the value of the bomb outweighed the value of the lives of the crew.

When the Americans calculated the cost/benefit of dropping one atomic bomb from one aircraft thereby minimizing aircraft losses, they had the benefit of the experience with Wallis’s big bombs.

After the war, Wallis worked on swing-wing designs that were eventually passed over to the Americans, who then incorporated them into the F-111 and tried selling the aircraft back to Britain.

He proposed the development of large nuclear-powered submarines to carry cargo. He calculated these could travel faster and more efficiently than a surface vessel and be immune to ocean storms.

He also experimented with rocket-propelled torpedoes.

He was knighted in 1968 and retired from Vickers in 1971.

Simcoe's eternal rest is disturbed

2009-10-12T08:44:00.007-05:00

JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE, FOUNDER OF THE CITY OF YORK (NOW TORONTO), ONTARIO

I don’t have a problem with Canada’s immigration policy as we seem to be attracting immigrants of good quality, but sometimes you have to wonder.

There is a story in today’s Toronto Sun about a British couple with two children who want to immigrate to Canada and applied under the skilled worker category. They were turned down because they only scored 65 points and they needed 67 to make the cut. They are appealing the decision to the Federal Court of Canada.

Apparently, they scored low on the section called “Adaptability”.

I live in a part of the country where women walk around in Burkas. There are whole neighbourhoods that, except for the quality of the housing, look like they were transplanted from Dacca or Delhi, judging by the dress commonly worn by the residents and the nearby houses of worship. Other communities have every street sign and store window written solely in Chinese. Many of these people don’t speak a word of English, or prefer to converse in their native language. Government notices are printed in about 7 different languages.

But the British couple failed on adaptability???

Simcoe must be rolling over in his grave.

Getting what you deserve

2009-10-09T12:46:00.010-05:00

A number of people are scratching their heads today over the announcement that U.S. President Barack Obama has been given the Nobel Peace Prize, nominations for which closed just two weeks after he was sworn in as the American President.

Much too much is made of this award. It is not that important in the great scheme of things. It is not given out every year in case there are no obvious candidates.

It is worth keeping in mind that, aside from some embarrassing mistakes in awarding the prize, to Yasser Arafat, for example, the people who have been overlooked for this award speaks volumes about the subjectivity of the process and the debasement of the concept of awarding a prize for the advancement of peace.

The most memorable omission was Mahatma Ghandi, who was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and 1948. Another lifelong, influential, and tireless advocate for peace was British philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. He never won the Peace Prize either.

Some credit Obama’s attempts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons for his favourable ratings with the Nobel Committee.

Other than stating what he would like to see happen, and making some overtures to other interested parties, it is difficult to attribute any measure of success to his wishes. In fact, he has been sitting on his thumb with respect to Iran and sending that country love letters and happy-face videos that appear not to have moved it one jot in the direction of giving up on a bomb.

Consider his efforts and achievements compared with that of the 1962 winner, Dr. Linus Pauling, considered to be one of the two greatest scientists of the 20th century (the other being Albert Einstein), as outlined in Wikipedia.

In 1958, Pauling began a petition drive in cooperation with biologist Barry Commoner, who had studied radioactive strontium-90 in the baby teeth of children across North America and concluded that above-ground nuclear testing posed public health risks in the form of radioactive fallout. He also participated in a public debate with the atomic physicist Edward Teller about the actual probability of fallout causing mutations. In 1958, Pauling and his wife presented the United Nations with a petition signed by more than 11,000 scientists calling for an end to nuclear-weapon testing. Public pressure subsequently led to a moratorium on above-ground nuclear weapons testing, followed by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. On the day that the treaty went into force, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Pauling the Nobel Peace Prize, describing him as "Linus Carl Pauling, who ever since 1946 has campaigned ceaselessly, not only against nuclear weapons tests, not only against the spread of these armaments, not only against their very use, but against all warfare as a means of solving international conflicts."

I not only have no objection to Obama pursuing the limitations on nuclear weapons I hope he succeeds. But Pauling worked for 16 years on the anti-war file before being recognized by the Committee and after he was successful in bringing public pressure to bear on ending nuclear weapon testing.

Let’s see what the young fellow can do before handing him an award that Alfred Nobel intended to be for success, not just for hopes and dreams.